Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 31 October.

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday 1 November.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 31 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Debt Relief

Mr. Andrew George: What assessment she has made of the impact of writing off the debt of heavily indebted less-developed countries on the poorest in those countries. [132182]

Mr. John McFall: What decisions were taken at the recent World Bank and IMF meetings on debt relief. [132184]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are 35 heavily indebted poor countries that could qualify for enhanced debt relief, 30 of them in Africa. At the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in Prague, it was agreed that all possible efforts would be made to get 20 countries on track for debt relief by the end of the year. After that we will face great difficulty because, of the remaining 15 countries that could qualify, 11 are affected by conflict. We are hopeful that six countries may qualify next year.
The enhanced debt relief initiative requires all qualifying countries to focus their policies and resources on the reduction of poverty. The debt relief that is being made available will write off up to two thirds of those countries' debt.

Mr. George: I am grateful for that reply, and I think that the Government should be thoroughly congratulated on what they have achieved so far. I know that many Members on both sides of the House are anxious for the debt write-off to be a success.
Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that many challenges remain? Half the 120 million population of Bangladesh still live in absolute poverty. Is it not unacceptable that that country will not benefit from relief because it has already—responsibly—paid off its debt? Will the Secretary of State publish targets showing when the poorest of the 41 poorest countries are expected to experience the benefit of the write-off?

Clare Short: There is no doubt that Bangladesh contains a large number of very poor people, but it does not qualify for the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We should be careful not to suggest, in our enthusiasm for debt relief, that all debt should always be written off. Poor countries need to be able to borrow and repay responsibly, so that they have a good track record and can secure foreign investment and enable their economies to grow. Bangladesh, with its new textile industry, has been expanding its economy very well. Bangladesh has problems, but debt relief is not the best remedy. It needs good international development assistance, and we in the United Kingdom have a growing programme.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could show that the benefits of debt relief were going to the poor. He was right to stress that. The UK Government's objective was not debt relief at any price, but to lever policy that would bring real benefit to the poor, in terms of both better economic growth and better social policy. We believe that the framework of poverty reduction strategies is a great advance, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a target, because that will depend on good implementation. We will, however, be monitoring progress, and I shall be happy to report.

Mr. McFall: I congratulate the Government on their 100 per cent. debt cancellation initiative. It is not matched by multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are responsible for more than 35 per cent. of long-term debt in these countries. As a result, the first five heavily indebted countries receiving help pay more than half a million dollars to foreign creditors each year. That is more than they spend on health. Will the Government ensure that the multilateral institutions live up to their responsibilities, so that we can finally get the debt cleared?

Clare Short: The IMF and the World Bank are international public sector institutions, funded by taxpayers internationally. They will find it difficult to fund debt relief in, for instance, Zambia, which has enormous debts, unless the American Congress votes for United States contributions. We have real difficulties in


funding the existing initiative, and it would not be possible for the IMF and the World Bank to commit themselves to more.
This initiative writes off two thirds of the debt of the countries concerned. Those that have qualified so far will be spending 10 per cent. of their Government revenues on debt payments, and in most cases their social spending is higher than their spending on debt. The initiative is better than some critics suggest.
We never achieve perfection in this life, and the IMF and the World Bank cannot contribute more. We must work hard to persuade the American Congress to vote for its contribution, or we shall be in trouble.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that even if all the debt of the world's poorest countries were written off, they would still remain poor unless we reformed the world's trading system? In that context, can she tell the House what she is doing to ensure that the United Kingdom and the European Union wipe out duty and quota systems so that the poorest countries can sell their goods all over the world and become less poor? Can she also update the House on progress with the Cotonou agreement, which has replaced the Lomé agreement?

Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Lady that we need a more just trading system and that developing countries need better trading opportunities. That is especially true in agriculture—the EU needs to reform that sector—and, in particular, the trade in processed agricultural goods, in which those developing countries have a natural advantage. That is one of the reasons why I believe passionately, and the Government in general believe strongly, that we need another trade round and that developing countries could make great gains from it. I am afraid, however, that there is no immediate prospect of reaching an agreement, not just because of the United States election, but because many developing countries are so burdened with their commitments under the Uruguay round that they are not demanding a round themselves. We have to keep up the argument and the agenda for trade reform that would bring real benefits to developing countries.
On the Cotonou agreement, which replaces Lomé, it is now agreed that poverty reduction is the central focus of all the development assistance and the way in which the assistance will flow has been simplified. I am hopeful that it will be a much better instrument of aid for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries than that represented by the EU record to date.

Mr. Andrew Reed: We welcome the initiatives that have been taken. I understand that, for example, Cameroon's debt has been reduced by a welcome $100 million, but that still leaves it paying $400 million a year in interest alone—a great deal of money, as my right hon. Friend would agree. What further steps can be taken with the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that the HIPCs initiative makes a substantial difference to some of those countries? Although we have taken welcome steps so far, I am sure that she would agree that there is much further to go. So far, this country has

taken a lead internationally, but can we push that effort much further as we head towards the end of the year 2000, in which we hoped to make such progress?

Clare Short: No. It is my view that we will not persuade the international community to finance a more generous debt relief programme than the current one. As I have said, we have not received the American contributions—that is still in doubt—and we shall be in difficulty if we do not get them. Under the HIPCs initiative, $100 billion will be written off. People talk as though that is nothing, but it is a massive sum by any account, certainly given the budgets of those very poor countries.
Those countries will need other help, for example, continuing aid and other forms of assistance, such as better trading arrangements. Cameroon has just qualified to start on the process, but it has terrible problems because of corruption. It needs help with debt relief, but it needs to instigate reform, deal with corruption and prioritise the poor. We need reform from all sides, and that includes that undertaken by the Governments of the countries concerned.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Everything that the Secretary of State has said does not change the fact that the timetable for debt relief has been badly misjudged by the Government. Last year, the Prime Minister said that 25 countries would get relief by the end of 2000. This year, the Chancellor confirmed that, saying that 25 countries would get relief by the end of 2000, and he should know because he chaired the IMF committee. However, by May this year the Chancellor admitted that the figure had fallen to 20. As we stand here today, only 11 countries have qualified and there are only nine weeks to go to the end of the year. What possible confidence can we have in the commitments of the World Bank, the IMF and the Government when the targets for helping the world's poorest and most vulnerable have been allowed to slip so dramatically? Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee the current timetable predictions of her colleagues, the IMF and the World Bank? We need to know.

Clare Short: Thank heavens, the Conservative party is in opposition because the hon. Lady clearly does not understand the problem of debt or the international system. For example, Côte d'Ivoire has had a coup and is therefore unlikely to qualify for debt relief. We need co-operation from all the countries that give debt relief and the qualifying countries must adopt the necessary reforms to receive it.
For the hon. Lady to talk as though the UK Government can control all that is completely foolish and shows that she does not understand what is going on. Ask anyone in the international system: Britain has been—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) stopped heckling, he might learn something. Clearly, he has many problems and needs to learn a lot. [Interruption.] He is still heckling. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, could—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady just asked an ill-informed and foolish question and will not listen to the answer. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still heckling continuously. Therefore, it is


difficult to speak and impossible for him to hear. I do not think that that is appropriate behaviour for the House of Commons. [Interruption.] He laughs, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will decide what is appropriate behaviour. It is for the Minister to answer the question.

Clare Short: I am pleased to hear it.
We are very hopeful, but there is no possibility of the UK Government giving a guarantee. Can the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) give a guarantee that the Cameroon Government will start to deal with corruption and focus on poverty, that we will get some decent resolution of the coup in Côte d'Ivoire, and that Ethiopia and Eritrea will make peace and therefore qualify for assistance? It is impossible. What we will guarantee is that we will maintain the pressure on the IMF and World Bank to keep to the commitment that was made in Prague. We will continue to be the leading force for that.

Kenya

Mr. Richard Allan: What projects on good governance her Department is supporting in Kenya. [132183]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): High levels of corruption and poor economic management have caused enormous damage to the economy and people of Kenya. The UK, along with all other development agencies, has made it clear over the past three years that support to Kenya would be conditional on firm action on corruption. A strong package has been negotiated with the IMF, which we support. We are now at the beginning of a difficult reform process in Kenya, which will require sustained Kenyan and international support.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful for that answer, but the Secretary of State will be aware that concerns are increasing over political stability in Kenya, with daily rumours about early elections and whether President Moi will stand down as required by the constitution. Two separate constitutional review processes are in competition. In that context, will the Minister consider increasing direct support from her Department to good government initiatives in Kenya, so that we see a successful election process? Small investment in such initiatives now may avoid the huge economic, social and human costs of further instability in east Africa, which would be caused by a flawed election process in Kenya.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The situation is fragile. On top of the history of corruption, poor economic management and growing poverty, there is a very serious and terrible drought in Kenya, which is having bad consequences, so we should all worry for the future stability of that country. We are already providing assistance to try to ensure that there are fair and proper elections. We will do all that we can to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Tom Cox: My right hon. Friend is highly regarded in Kenya for her on-going commitment. What discussions is her Department having with Richard

Leakey in view of his commitment to change the long-standing political system in Kenya? Will she always bear it in mind that it is ordinary men, women and their families in Kenya who suffer enormously in terms of education and employment opportunities and health care? Whenever we talk about loans from either the IMF or World Bank, it is ordinary people who, sadly, suffer.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why one must constantly make difficult judgments. There is no such thing as a perfect Government, even in the UK. Therefore, one is always trying to offer assistance and support for reform to improve the life of ordinary people, working with whatever Governments one can find. He is also right that President Moi's decision to appoint Richard Leakey and his team to take over the leadership of the reform process in Kenya represents a big commitment to change, reform and to tackle corruption. That has led us to back a new IMF and World Bank package, which we hope will focus on improving the lives of ordinary people, which are getting worse because of the drought.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Does not the Secretary of State share my concern about reports in The Eastafrican newspaper on 5 October that the Kenyan drive against corruption lost steam the very second that the IMF endorsed its $198 million aid package, causing many diplomatic sources to comment that the Kenyan Government were simply out to hoodwink donors? Given that Britain has just increased bilateral aid to Kenya, is she confident that our aid is not simply propping up a Government who have no real intention to reform? Is it not time to make it crystal clear that British aid to Kenya and all other Governments will in future be more closely linked to specific delivery on governance and corruption, and that if they fail to deliver their aid will be stopped and the same amount of money will be pumped through non-governmental organisations and charities in that country, where it has a better chance of reaching those really in need?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman must learn that one cannot reform Governments who are performing badly by giving aid to NGOs and charities. That happens when one is simply bringing humanitarian relief and cannot lever any reform. That is an important point that the hon. Gentleman needs to learn. Our recent increase in aid to Kenya was £10 million for drought relief because people are going hungry. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) did not heckle me, I could answer his question.
I do not agree with the report in The Eastafrican that people have been hoodwinked. This is a sophisticated and complicated IMF programme with many conditions that must be met constantly so that support and help will continue to flow. That remains true of our support in Kenya and elsewhere. We have tightened up on conditionality since our Government took over from the one supported by the hon. Gentleman. I agree that we cannot be confident of success in Kenya. There are many difficulties and many corrupt forces. The economy is in bad shape and the drought is serious. We will have to do all that we can to try to keep the reform process on track, and we will do that.

Bilateral Aid

Mr. Tony Baldry: If she will make a statement on the percentage of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid which goes to Commonwealth countries. [132185]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): About 62 per cent. of our bilateral programme supports Commonwealth countries, of which 85 per cent. goes to low income countries.
The Commonwealth has the potential to play an important role in poverty elimination and we are working to increase its effectiveness. The strengths of the Commonwealth are its informality and its ability to mobilise a wide and diverse range of countries.

Mr. Baldry: I thank the Minister for that answer and I am sure that the House agrees with his sentiments about the role and potential of the Commonwealth. Given that we have to give a fairly substantial amount of our aid budget to multilateral aid through the European Union, does the Minister have any proposals to increase the 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid budget that we give to the Commonwealth? Given that we can give to other countries through the EU multilateral aid budget, should not the first claim on our bilateral aid be Commonwealth countries rather than spreading it too thinly?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, we want more of our direct assistance to go to the least developed and poorest countries, whether they be Commonwealth countries or others. We want the European Community to put its aid into the poorest countries as well and we are pressing strongly for that.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we all want to see Pakistan return to democracy and full membership of the Commonwealth as soon as possible? Will he also confirm that we still regard Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth and that we are still helping with many projects in that country to deal with its problems and poverty?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, we are certainly concerned about the poor people in Pakistan. Whatever the Government, there are still many poor people and we look at ways to ensure that our help gets to them as quickly and effectively as possible.

Mr. Gary Streeter: How can the Minister justify the recent announcement of increased bilateral aid to Malawi, a Commonwealth country, when we learn that it has just spent vast sums on buying 39 brand new Mercedes cars for Government Ministers? Does he agree with our high commissioner in Malawi, Mr. Finlayson, who said that the British Government would be embarrassed by that, particularly as it is not yet known whether it happened with the benefit of what he called
British balance of payments support?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to order an inquiry into that potentially serious scandal to reassure the British public that their aid money is not being abused in

that way? Will he make it clear that any Government who abuse our help will no longer be supported by the British taxpayer?

Mr. Foulkes: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to use diversionary tactics. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, and 64 per cent. of its people are malnourished. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the absolute assurance that we ensure that our assistance goes to help the poorest people—

Mr. Streeter: To buy Mercedes.

Mr. Foulkes: We will continue to provide that assistance, despite the hon. Gentleman's continual heckling. He talks and he shouts, but we act to help poor people.

Ms Oona King: I have just returned from Bangladesh, where I witnessed for myself some of the most devastating floods that it has had for a century. Can my hon. Friend outline whether, and how, Bangladesh will benefit from the United Kingdom's disaster relief fund?

Mr. Foulkes: Our long-term development programme in Bangladesh is increasing in the next two years from £70 million to £90 million. Moreover, we have just approved about £1 million for flood-related assistance to the affected populations in the west of Bangladesh. We also anticipate approving more immediate flood relief and contributing to flood rehabilitation once the floods recede. I hope that my hon. Friend will be very pleased that this Government are taking quick and effective action.

Disaster Relief

Mr. Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's international aid budget for disaster relief. [132186]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Internationally, 5 per cent. of development assistance is usually spent on disaster relief. The United Kingdom does not set itself a pre-ordained limit, but spends according to need. In the previous financial year, 11 per cent. of my Department's budget was spent on disaster relief. That compares with 5 per cent, in 1997–98, and 8 per cent, in 1998–99. This year, we have provided relief for floods in west Bengal, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, a hurricane in Belize, and a typhoon and tidal wave in North Korea. [Interruption.] We are also continuing to provide humanitarian assistance to people affected by conflict in many parts of the world. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to come to order.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. She will remember stating about the Mozambique floods;
The problem is not money. The problem is deploying on the ground, getting the helicopters and boats where they are needed, and getting food and water to people.—[Official Report, 28 February 2000; Vol. 345, c. 22.]


Will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress has been made in establishing a fully capable United Nations rapid reaction disaster task force?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: an individual's chances of surviving a flood or other disaster are determined largely by the help available in the immediately succeeding hours. Although subsequent international assistance helps the country to recover, it is immediate action that saves people's lives, their animals and their livelihoods. Immediate action depends on strong systems already being in place in disaster-prone countries.
We are working with various countries and with the International Committee of the Red Cross to build up national red cross organisations. We are also working to strengthen the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so that it can plan and deploy help and stockpiles of assistance around the world. Although the UNHCR is not as strong as it should be, it is strengthening, and it is a lot stronger than it was a few years ago. We will continue to work hard with the UNHCR to strengthen that international capacity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that only the UN can play that central role.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Would my right hon. Friend like to acknowledge the brilliant work that has been done by British civil engineers in disaster relief efforts around the world? May I also take this opportunity to congratulate her on her honorary fellowship of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which was awarded to her to acknowledge her efforts in international disaster relief?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—my grandfather would be proud of the fact that I am now a properly qualified engineer—and agree with him. We have in Red R—Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief—an association of United Kingdom engineers who, at a moment's notice, will drop everything and work on projects to provide water and sanitation and to build dams. They proudly serve our country, and we should be enormously proud of them. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House take great pride in what they do.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State agree that, sometimes, the most effective disaster relief should be delivered by the people living in the country? Does she not find it almost obscene that one of the richest countries in the world should be sending teams to sub-Saharan Africa to recruit nurses for the national health service, when those nurses should be left in the countries in which they have been trained?

Clare Short: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point. Although it is good for people to share their skills internationally and to travel to other countries, and although we and other countries may have skill shortages and want to recruit internationally, we should not recruit highly skilled and expensively trained people from some of the poorest countries. As we develop our policy we must balance those two imperatives and my Department is trying to make sure that the Government do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): First, may I welcome you, Mr. Speaker?
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I have further such meetings later today.
It would not be right for this Question Time to pass without paying tribute to the Father of the House, the right hon. member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), on his retirement. His 50 years continuous service in the House is a truly great achievement and I am sure that the whole House will join me in celebrating his long service.
On a sadder note, on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should like to take this opportunity to express our profound shock at the death of Donald Dewar. Donald was an extraordinary friend and a fine politician. He was a tremendous servant of our country. I understand that, from Friday, a book of condolence will be made available for Members to sign in the Library.
Regrettably, another death occurred among Labour Members during the summer break: Audrey Wise was a great champion of women's and children's rights and made a very significant contribution to the political life of this country over many decades. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. George: I am sure that the whole House shares in those condolences.
The Prime Minister could be forgiven for believing that rural folk think of little else than supporting a handful of people who get their kicks from chasing wild animals all over the countryside. I can tell him that that is a sideshow; there are many more important issues. Here is a real test for the Prime Minister's rural credentials. Does he find it acceptable that, under the council tax system, once again this year £168 million of taxpayers' money will go towards subsidising the wealthy to have second homes when many thousands of rural folk do not even have their first home?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely unsympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. A rural White Paper will be published shortly. We must emphasise the importance of services in our rural areas—services such as the health service, schools, rural post offices and transport services on which people rely. So I entirely agree that it is appropriate that we take all that into account and make sure that money is spent wisely for the benefit of people who live in the countryside.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is based in Doncaster, in regenerating the former mining communities in England, Scotland and Wales? Does he


agree that the Government need to give serious consideration to extending the lifespan of the CRT beyond its present three-year period?

The Prime Minister: Of course we keep that matter under constant review, but we have made a big financial commitment to the former coalfield communities. That money is an important part of regeneration. Without that investment, many people would have no chance whatever of getting a job again. That is why the Government are committed to making that investment over the next few years. We will then review the position. It is important to make that investment, rather than cutting it as the Opposition intend to do.

Mr. William Hague: I join the Prime Minister in his welcome to you, Mr. Speaker, and in the tributes that he paid to the late Audrey Wise and the late Donald Dewar, whom we will remember across the House as a most courteous, charming and talented man. We also join the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the end of whose 50 years in the House will be regretted by hon. Members in all parties.
On Thursday morning, the Prime Minister said that he was against the euro—at least for the rest of day. By that afternoon, he was in favour of it again. On Friday, he was reported to be cooling on the euro. On Monday, Downing street asserted that he was still as enthusiastic as ever about preparing for it. On Tuesday, we learned that he told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) that Europe was one of those issues where you have to mark your line and stick to it through thick and thin. Now, it is Wednesday and the prime ministerial jelly has wobbled back into Question Time. Will he tell us whether anything has happened over the past three months that has made any difference at all to his policy on the euro—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: We know from the great fly-on-the-wall documentary that the right hon. Gentleman rehearses his jokes very carefully. He should rehearse his policy a little better. It has always been the case that we do not say that we want to join the euro now, but neither do we rule it out. We keep the option open. The dividing line at the election will be between this party, which says that we keep the option open and give people a choice in a referendum, and his position, which—at least at the last telling—was to rule it out for the next Parliament.

Mr. Hague: Is it not the case that if the Government were not so arrogant and out of touch, their policy would have changed? Does he not agree that the pound and the euro are diverging, not converging, making any argument for early entry weaker, not stronger? Does he not agree that the idea that the euro is inevitable for everyone in Europe has now been blown away by the people of Denmark? Will he confirm that, in spite of all that, his policy remains to prepare for a referendum early in the next Parliament, which could mean, next year, scrapping the pound?

The Prime Minister: Our policy is, yes, to prepare and decide; that remains our policy. In principle, we are in favour but, in practice, the economic tests have to be met.

The very things that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about show the wisdom of having a policy based on the national economic interest. The question that he has failed to answer throughout is how he can be against the euro in principle, but only for five years. That is an absurd policy and it will continue to be an absurd policy.

Mr. Hague: Nothing is more absurd than a Prime Minister who has committed us in principle to joining the euro saying last week that he was against it. He talks about his five tests; we know what they are: "Does Peter want it? Will Gordon let me? Will the French like it? Will Robin notice? Can I get away with it?" Why does he not listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said yesterday that it would not be in Britain's interests to risk membership of the single currency in the near future and that paving the way for joining it could destabilise our entire economy? Does not that mean that a policy of preparing for a referendum early in the next Parliament should now be changed, or is the Prime Minister as out of touch with the Bank of England as he is with the people of Britain?

The Prime Minister: The Governor of the Bank of England's policy is exactly the same. It is decided on the economic tests: jobs, investment and industry. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is that, even if the euro were in our interests in terms of jobs, industry and investment, he is committed, as a matter of politics, to ruling it out in the next Parliament. If we ruled it out for the next Parliament as a matter of principle and on the basis of politics, it would have a devastating effect on British jobs and investment because industry wants to know that we will take the decision on what is best for the economy. That is why I say that we do not go in today because it is not right for the economy. However, if the economic tests are positive early in the next Parliament, we put it to the British people in a referendum. That policy is clear and right. A policy that is as clear as mud is to say that the right hon. Gentleman is against it in principle, but only for five years.

Mr. Hague: Is there no end to how out of touch the Prime Minister has become? Is he never prepared to admit that he has made a mistake? If he cannot admit a mistake on committing the country to join the euro, will he now admit that it was a mistake—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not shout so loudly, as I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Prime Minister cannot admit that he made a mistake in committing the country to join the euro, will he now admit that it was a mistake to increase petrol duties in this year's Budget?

The Prime Minister: No. I believe that the position set out in the Budget was right. What is more, that is the position that the right hon. Gentleman supported—[Interruption.] I am sorry, in July, when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether the Conservative party was committed to cutting petrol duty, he said no. On the


Jimmy Young programme on 14 September, the Conservative leader was asked about cutting fuel duty, and said:
It's my job to provide the country with an alternative government, not to ride around on whatever bandwagon from time to time.

Mr. Hague: So the Prime Minister believes that the petrol price rises are nothing to do with him. We all voted against the Budget increases in petrol duties. We voted against them in March and April, at the time of the Budget, which is different from supporting them. Now the Prime Minister thinks that petrol price rises have nothing to do with him. What a load of unleaded nonsense he believes in. He has increased petrol duties twice as fast as the previous Government, and by more in three years than any Prime Minister in history. As First Lord of the Treasury, he has given us the most expensive petrol in Europe and brought the country to a standstill. Will he now accept that those increases in the last Budget were a mistake?

The Prime Minister: I continue to say that these decisions should be made in the proper way in the Budget process. We must not do anything that takes risks with economic stability or vital investment in public services. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is a policy for boom, bust and instability, and for £16 billion worth of cuts in our public services. We reject both those policies and, from now until the general election, we shall carry on until we get answers to questions about them.

Mr. Hague: We simply want to give back to the people of this country the money that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stolen from them, which the Prime Minister wants only for re-election purposes. This autumn, we see a Government who are still determined to scrap the pound, not listening to the people of this country on petrol taxes, presiding over rising crime, facing a growing shortage of teachers, and turning the national lottery into a national shambles. Is not the real story of the Government this autumn that they are lost in their own spin and failure and that we have a Prime Minister who will not listen, will not learn and will not lead?

The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman is on the jokes, he is fine, but when it comes to policy he does not have a clue. He says that we have a big surplus, but three months ago he and the shadow Chancellor told us that our spending plans were reckless, irresponsible and would lead to higher interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman is still saying that, but now he wants to spend the surplus in every way possible.
In the end, there is a simple choice: do we want stability or a return to late 1980s policy when there was a budget surplus that was blown? The shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury at the time, but three years later we had the largest deficit on record, families were dispossessed of their homes, and there were record interest rates, spending cuts and tax rises. Do we want that policy or a policy of sustained growth and prudent investment in our public services? In the debate in the country, it is time that the right hon. Gentleman gave answers to questions.
Conservative Members do not keep their policies for long, so let me quote what the right hon. Gentleman said on the occasion of the shadow Home Secretary's little volte face on policy. When asked to criticise the right hon. Lady, he said:
I will take no further action against the Shadow Cabinet as I told them to give truthful answers.
It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman took his own advice—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is very noisy today. She should be quiet.

Mr. Alan Campbell: Do the Government have any plans to introduce into the national curriculum the geography of north-east England, given that the Tory party website puts Tyne Bridge in Sunderland, and Cleveland in Durham above Northumberland? Does not that show the Conservative party's contempt for the north-east as a region?

The Prime Minister: I think that the Leader of the Opposition, when he is on his countrywide campaign, will need a slightly better map.
May I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House? I am glad that he has made such a good recovery. I hope that, over the coming months, we will be able to provide him with all the ammunition that he needs to expose the Tory spending cuts and that party's proposed return to the economic instability that this Government have got rid of.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to your post?
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the Tory privatisation of British Rail means that today there are 25 train franchises, 10 train operators, seven maintenance contractors, three regulators and four rolling stock companies? Is that a sane way to try and deliver a safe national rail network?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to describe the chaos of privatisation that we inherited, but the very reason why it is important to have the Strategic Rail Authority is that we will get a far better, co-ordinated approach in the future. The other necessity is large-scale public and private investment. That is why investment in transport over the next 10 years is absolutely vital to renew the transport infrastructure, and why the Opposition's proposals to cut that investment would be so damaging.

Mr. Kennedy: Given that safety is an important element of public transportation policy, will the Prime Minister rethink his proposed part-privatisation of National Air Traffic Services Ltd., which comes before the House of Lords again tomorrow? The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs described the part-privatisation proposal as
the worst of all possible options,
yet the Prime Minister is pursuing it. Will he think again? The real danger is that he will turn NATS into the Railtrack of the skies.

The Prime Minister: We certainly will not do that, as the air safety aspects of the proposal will be kept in the


public sector. That is why I do not agree that the proposal is the wrong thing to do. We are engaged in the process that is under way with regard to air traffic control services in order to get the significant sum of money—probably £1 billion over the next few years—that those services need to be invested in them.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said many times, we have to make a choice. We are not able to provide everything from the public sector. If we can get money in from the private sector, while at the same time making sure that air traffic control safety issues are kept in the public sector, I think that we can get the best of both worlds.

Ms Helen Southworth: May I welcome you to your post, Mr. Speaker?
Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that starving the railways of cash for years was a serious error of judgment by the previous Government, and that privatising them in the way that that Government did was another? Will he ensure that Railtrack and the train operators use the significant new investment that this Government are providing quickly, efficiently and effectively for customers?

The Prime Minister: We will put that investment in as quickly as possible, but it will take time. For many years, the railways were subject to underinvestment. We need to renew our transport infrastructure. The transport plan was well received, but it is important to emphasise that this is a long-term project. We have to ensure that investment is sustainable: it is no use putting money in one year and taking it out the next.
That is why it is so important that we do not take risks with economic stability. We are able to talk about putting more money into schools, hospitals and the transport infrastructure only because the economy has been growing strongly and there has been prudent management of the country's finances. We must not take any risks with that either, but my hon. Friend is right: we need to get that money into our transport infrastructure, and to ensure that it renews that infrastructure and makes it as good as any in Europe.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I know that the Prime Minister is a keen supporter of devolution. No doubt he will welcome the fact that, in next year's census, the people of Scotland will be able to tick a box to say that they are Scottish. Can he explain why the people of Wales will not be able to tick a similar box to say that they are Welsh? How does he suggest that we can remedy that disgrace? How does he justify this appalling treatment of the needs of the Welsh nation?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that no insult at all is intended to people in Wales. However, I understand that the National Statistician has announced today that there will be a new study into Welsh identity, using information gathered from the census—[Interruption.] If people wish to say that they are Welsh, we will count them as Welsh. That option exists, but obviously we are looking carefully at the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why so far, apparently,

there has been no favourable decision on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese, although I accept entirely that no previous Government have acted in this respect? Should we not follow the example of the Canadians regarding our obligations to a what is now a very small number of people, who suffered so terribly as Japanese prisoners of war, were treated as work slaves and tortured? Surely it is not too much to ask that at long last we honour our obligations and do what is right.

The Prime Minister: As I have said before, I have always had a good deal of sympathy with the campaign mounted by the Royal British Legion for additional compensation to be paid to far east prisoners of war. The suffering that they endured was appalling; the nation owes them a particular debt of honour for the sacrifice that they made and the memories that they have had to live with, literally for the rest of their lives. My hon. Friend has made his points in a very good and convincing way. I simply ask him and, more importantly, those affected, to exercise patience for a little longer. These decisions need to be taken in the run-up to the pre-Budget report. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he has made. It will not be very much longer until the decision is announced.

Mr. Julian Brazier: May I ask the Prime Minister to suggest to the Secretary of State for Health that he reconsider the plans to cut the number of acute hospital beds in East Kent by up to 15 per cent.? At the height of summer, individual hospitals—and, at one point, all three hospitals—had patients on trolleys in corridors and offices.

The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman raised this point with him yesterday, and he said that he would look into this specific case. On the general picture, however, we are increasing the number of critical care beds as part of our preparations for winter. Although I know that there are still nursing shortages in certain parts of the country, all in all, according to the latest figures, there are 10,000 more nurses in the health service today than there were three years ago. Of course there will still be difficulties in particular parts of the country, but slowly, step by step, improvements are being made.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that, during the next few weeks, when millions of pensioners throughout the country will receive notice of a winter fuel payment of £150 and a free television licence, all letters carry words to the effect that, in the unlikely event of a Tory Government, this will be the first and the last payment that they will receive?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is of course right. The £150 winter allowance is important for pensioners because it does not reduce their benefit and is not taken into account for tax purposes. The free television licence for the over-75s is also very important. I think that the Conservative party is wholly wrong in


thinking that people want those benefits taken away. They do not—they will welcome the winter allowance, they will welcome the free television licences for the over-75s and I very much hope that they will also welcome what we do for pensioners as a whole.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Prime Minister frequently refers to the economic criteria for entry into the euro. Will he explain to the House whether he has any criteria relating to the political and constitutional implications of entry into a single currency?

The Prime Minister: There is a serious constitutional and political question here: whether membership of the euro should be barred on constitutional grounds. Our answer to that is no. In the end, the proper test is that of the national economic interest. That is not to say that there are not important questions, but we, as a political party in Government, have resolved them in the way that I have described.
Let me put the point back to the hon. Gentleman. What is surely absurd—I think that he might possibly agree—is to be against the single currency on constitutional grounds, which is a matter of principle, but only for five years. I believe the truth is that there are only two sensible positions. One is to rule it out altogether on constitutional grounds—a principled position, but one with which I disagree. The other is to say that it is essentially a test to be made on economic grounds—that is our position. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's position and I can understand our position. What I cannot understand—and I bet that he cannot understand it either—is the Conservative position.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I make no apology for returning to the question of rail safety, because commuters are travelling out of Bolton Trinity Street station on extremely overcrowded trains in what many people regard as unsafe conditions. For example, on 30 June a door flew open and a man who had multiple sclerosis almost fell out on to the track. Since the original franchises were let by the previous Administration with cost cutting in mind, is not refranchising an urgent necessity to improve the comfort and, especially, the safety of passengers?

The Prime Minister: Those are decisions that have to be taken in respect of each franchise. My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the mess of privatisation that we inherited, but every bit as difficult as that—in fact, possibly more so—was the chronic under-investment over a period of years. We have a simple choice in this country: if we want better public services, we have to invest in them and modernise them. That is the choice. We cannot carry on thinking that we can get decent public services—whether it be transport, schools, hospitals or police back on the beat—unless we are prepared to make that financial

commitment. That is why, on our side, we are prepared to make the commitment and the Conservative side wants to cut it.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is about to become First Minister in Scotland, announced his proposals for the politicisation of the Scottish civil service, through preferential links with Labour MSPs and the Scottish Labour party. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity unequivocally to condemn those remarks, especially as, under the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for the good running of that civil service rests with him?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question at all.

Mr. David Stewart: Earlier, the Prime Minister paid a tribute to the late Donald Dewar, who was well respected in this House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Donald Dewar had a lifelong commitment to social justice? Will not the greatest memorial to Donald Dewar be to continue with that crusade, taking a million more children out of poverty?

The Prime Minister: Of course, that is right. The campaign for social justice means that we have to take decisions, such as the new deal for the unemployed, the working families tax credit—to help make work pay for people—and the increases in child benefit. We know from the Conservative party that, in respect of each one of those things—the new deal, the working families tax credit and the increases in child benefit—they are committed to taking them off people in this country. I think it is right that people have them. One of the reasons why we have a million extra jobs in the economy is because we are helping people back into work and making work pay. As a result of that, we are saving money that we can then invest in our public services.

Mr. John Wilkinson: What should I say to my constituents about—[Interruption.] What would the Prime Minister advise that I say to my constituents about the spending priorities of his Government in London—to my constituents and the patients of Harefield hospital, the premier cardiothoracic hospital in this country? Harefield faces imminent closure. The hospital has carried out more heart transplants than any other in the world. Yet in east London, with total equanimity, the Prime Minister sees more than £600 million of public money go down the drain with no shame or remorse from his friend Lord Falconer.

The Prime Minister: Leaving aside for a moment the particular case that the hon. Gentleman is making, the Government are putting investment into the health service while his party is committed to taking that investment back out. We really cannot have a situation where Conservative Members come to the House, stand up and demand extra money for public services when they are committed to cutting that money for public services.

Points of Order

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware, as will the entire House, that your predecessor was always a doughty fighter for the rights of Back Benchers, but particularly that your predecessor deprecated any practice of Government Ministers making outside the House statements that she said should have been made here. I hope that you will confirm that your policy will be to continue that.
Could you help the House, Mr. Speaker, by telling us—in the light of that and if you can give us that assurance—how it was that you felt able to give a press conference outside the House this morning, before you had been able to share your thoughts with Members of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Let me say that I have the highest respect for my predecessor, but she is gone. She is no longer the Speaker; I am the Speaker. I say this to the right hon. Gentleman: I made no statement. I called the press in because my home in Glasgow has been inundated by people from the press. They had no malice, but they wanted to speak to me, and that was all that they wanted to do. Many of you will understand, as many of you have families, that, for the sake of my family, I had that concern. The press corps here, many of whom are highly respected, had asked to speak to me about me—that is all: about me. I chose, instead of giving individual interviews, to speak to them as a body. I think that that was a proper thing to do. [Interruption.] Order. That was a proper thing to do.
I have a responsibility to my family, back home in Glasgow, to ensure that they are not pestered in any way. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will never stop him from speaking to whom he wants to speak to and he will not stop me. Let me give this assurance: on anything to do with this House of Commons, I will be the first to come before the House of Commons and make a proper statement to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We know that, on Monday, a number of people contended for your job and I nominated someone other than yourself. The final decision was quite clear—an overwhelming majority, to say the least. Can we now work on the assumption that, the House having taken the decision on Monday, that will be accepted by all Members, and you will not be the subject of continued sniping and spite by those on the Opposition Benches—a small number, I believe—who simply cannot accept the democratic decision of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard no sniping. Everyone likes a Speaker.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: With that happy note, Mr. Speaker, may I concur fully? I have enjoyed many an occasion privately with you in the Tea Room,

when we have conferred on matters. However, may I trouble you to pursue the point of order that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I have not had the opportunity to see the full transcript of what you said this morning, but I did see on the television that you said that you were not the Government's man—that you were the House of Commons' man, and that you were going to stand up for our rights. I am sure that all Members of the House will appreciate that.
However, I did raise with you yesterday a point regarding Ministers making statements outside the House and Ministers not being in the House to attend to their responsibilities here. Your predecessor, Speaker Boothroyd, made it very clear from the Chair to all of us that she expected Ministers to make statements here, not outside—that they should come and be answerable here—and she also made the point—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to Speaker Boothroyd, Betty is no longer with us. You may want to have a quiet conversation with her outside the House, but it has nothing to do with us. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that if anyone—whether a Minister or a Back Bencher, a member of the Opposition or a member of a minority party—is in breach of the rules of this House, I will bring them to order. That is the best answer that I can give. [Interruption.] No; I am not going to continue; there are people who have other matters to raise.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Have you received either confirmation from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that he will be with us this afternoon or an apology for his intended absence?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise with you an issue about which I have given you notice. In the debate on Monday that secured your elevation to the Chair, it was repeatedly affirmed that Members are all equal in their rights, responsibilities and privileges. As far as I can tell, I, as an English Member, cannot ask in this place a question about the governance of the national health service in Scotland, yet, yesterday, a Scottish Member asked a question about the national health service in England and Wales. Is it in order for a Scottish Member to be able to exercise a privilege that is denied to Members from south of the border?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He makes an interesting debating point, but it is not really a point of order. Parliament legislated for a Scottish Parliament in 1998 and there were opportunities to debate those issues then. I also remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that it was only last year that the House debated and approved the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution.

Rogue Traders

Ms Margaret Moran: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to introduce further powers to regulate rogue traders.
My Bill would amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to deal effectively with rogue traders whose businesses sell shoddy or overpriced goods and sub-standard services and whose tools are misleading information, oppressive behaviour and high-pressure sales methods. The provisions of the Act for protecting consumers against such traders are out of date. It does not provide the means to take relevant and, above all, prompt action against rogue traders in today's marketplace.
At present, when a rogue trading practice is identified, the Act requires that the Director General of Fair Trading must, first, find out about the problem through local fair trading standards departments, who are then sent off to collect information and evidence, and secondly, look at the rogue trader activity only when it breaks the rules covered by existing consumer protection legislation or breach of contract. In other words, the bad practice must have already been dealt with under the law. Thirdly, the director general must then show that the rogue behaviour is "persistent". In other words, there has to be evidence of it going on over an undefined period of time. Fourthly, he must then try to get a written undertaking that the trader will stop that course of conduct. Finally, only if that undertaking is broken can the matter be taken up in court.
Therefore, the Director General of Fair Trading cannot make the trader give an undertaking. The time that it takes to collect the evidence is time enough for the rogue trader to take the money and run. Often, the rules being broken are not adequately covered by existing law and not easily evidenced for a civil breach of contract case. The rogue trader often uses careful lies that either only imply things or are incorporated into what is said but never into what is written down. In other words, the rogue trader is not playing by the same set of rules.
As consumers, we are not trained to question traders in detail and to nail down exactly what we are being sold. We assume reasonable behaviour and can be conned by the unscrupulous. The lengthy procedures required for the Office of Fair Trading to act leave consumers vulnerable to scams and allow rogue traders to make their money and move on. We are failing consumers by leaving such a gap in consumer protection law.
We buy over the internet, by post and by telephone, as well as in person, and we need consumer protection legislation that can keep up with the fact that we do not know the people from whom we buy and cannot rely on their being bona fide traders. Even if we ask at the local trading standards service, we can expect to receive only carefully worded warnings. It cannot tell us of its fears until it is too late, when the deed is done, the money spent and evidence taken in court.
Many victims of shoddy or overpriced goods, substandard services, misleading information, oppressive behaviour and high-pressure selling techniques are elderly, badly off, or vulnerable in some other way, but the activities of rogue traders are not confined to any one group. All consumers can be subject to such problems and to the ineffectiveness of our legislation.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux tells me that, throughout the country, its members receive frequent inquiries from consumers who suffer as a result of inadequate legislation to stop rogue traders. For example, a women in her 80s recently contacted a citizens advice bureau in the south. She is one of many persuaded to buy security equipment. Each time the trader calls, she is pressurised into buying more security, and has now spent more than £8,000.
Trading standards officers are aware of many similar examples. In my constituency of Luton, South, scare tactics are used to sell security equipment. On the doorstep, the salesman sadly explains that there have been many burglaries in the area recently to coerce elderly people into buying overpriced security systems and associated service contracts. In one instance, a 20-year service contract was sold to a 90-year-old woman. Elsewhere, an 80-year-old woman was coerced into paying more than £3,000 for plumbing work worth £600. There is even evidence of traders creating dangerous problems in heating systems to persuade consumers to buy a new system when the problem would have cost only about £50 to put right.
In Luton, South, trading standards officers are aware of a company selling local residents water purification systems, with the implication that their water is not fit to drink. The company leaves empty bottles with householders to be filled with tap water for collection and analysis by the same company. It is implied that the company is associated with the water authorities and that the water is unfit. The householder, believing there to be a problem with the water supply, is then sold a water purification system with an expensive after-sales service contract, often on a credit agreement with a ridiculous APR of 22.9 per cent. over five years. The cost can be more than £3,000.
In that instance, trading standards officers have no evidence at this stage of a criminal offence, but both they and the local water authority have tried to publicise the true nature of the sale. Although people have cancellation rights under the doorstep selling regulations and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they are not yet aware of the deception and continue to be conned.
None of us here will have to look far to find examples of such practices. Another case in my constituency, with which I am dealing, involves elderly victims. One couple were told by a company called Florida Direct that they had won a free holiday. Naturally, they were over the moon, but they were asked for their credit card details to secure the prize. What they were not told was that they would have to pay for flights and part of the accommodation. Their credit card was used to withdraw £500 from their account, and they are still fighting to recover that money.
By empowering trading standards officers, my Bill will help to wipe out such practices. It widens the power to stop rogue traders by giving trading standards officers on the ground, who know what is happening locally, the ability to act immediately as soon as a problem comes to light. It allows the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards services to require a trader to cease the offending trade practices and gives the power of a banning order which can include compensation to consumers.
The Bill allows for prompt action, which means that rogue traders cannot continue to make their money out of the vulnerable while trading standards officers remain
powerless to stop them. It does not limit action to cases where the existing law is being broken. It changes the request for a rogue trader to agree to better practice for a requirement to trade fairly. It gives that requirement teeth, with the penalty of a banning order.
The Bill also deals with the issue of the money paid by consumers, by allowing for compensation to victims of rogue trading. In short, it changes the treatment of rogue traders from, "Please will you be good in future, now that you have made your money?", to, "You will change now, or lose your right to trade and be made to refund that money."
The Bill catches all unfair practices and does not rely on a string of criminal prosecutions and/or civil cases before the problem can be effectively dealt with. It will also do much to strengthen consumer knowledge about what unscrupulous traders are up to through a requirement to publicise the content of banning orders.
The Bill trusts consumers with the information that they need to be the confident consumers described in last year's White Paper "Modern markets—confident consumers". It will thus allow consumers a measure of confidence in consumer protection, and evidence that they are being listened to. It puts the consumer centre stage.
The Bill will be a positive force for businesses, both for companies which suffer from the reputation of the rogue traders who will be caught by the legislation, and also because knowledgeable and demanding consumers are a positive force for business. I urge support for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Helen Jackson, Helen Jones, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Alan Keen and Judy Mallaber.

ROGUE TRADERS

Ms Margaret Moran accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to introduce further powers to regulate rogue traders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 November, and to be printed [Bill 176].

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Fuel Protests

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I also wish to inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be restricted to 12 minutes.

Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move,
That this House notes that, despite warnings from Her Majesty's Official Opposition, the Government refused to listen to the grievances brought to them by business and commerce, most particularly by hauliers, farmers, pensioners, the disabled and by those on low incomes or living in rural areas, thereby provoking the fuel protests in September; condemns the Government's initial complacency about the protests which later turned to panic; deplores the Government's repeated increases in taxation, despite having no mandate to do so and notes that the increases in the tax on petrol and diesel have become the symbol of the Government's betrayal of their tax promises; urges the Government to address the problems their tax increases have caused, by reducing tax on hard-working families, pensioners and businesses, including an immediate reduction in road fuel duty; and laments the fact that, despite the increases in tax on the travelling public, the Government has allowed the road system to deteriorate and has failed to deliver the improvements in the transport system which it promised and which the public expected.
First, Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations on your election? This is the first chance that I have had formally to do so.
Can there be any more explicit symbol of the Government's complacency, arrogance and evasion than the failure of the Deputy Prime Minister to be present in the Chamber today?

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I find that an astonishing remark from the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister informed the hon. Gentleman exactly why he cannot be present today: he is attending a series of meetings on the closure of the west coast main line and issues related to the Hatfield crash. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members who understand the Deputy Prime Minister's priorities will entirely understand the reason for his absence.

Mr. Norman: That is not what the Deputy Prime Minister's office told me. I was informed that the right hon. Gentleman was having meetings in his office, where I imagine he is sitting at this moment. Nobody will detract from the importance of his dealing with the Hatfield crash, but it is clear that he could have spared the time to be in the House today. The debate is about a crisis that almost brought the country to its knees, yet on the first occasion on which the House has had a chance to debate that crisis, the Deputy Prime Minister shows disdain for Parliament and the British people. What is the point of having a Secretary of State who will not appear for a debate on his own handling of a national crisis that almost


brought the country to its knees? The Deputy Prime Minister has been leading the Government's anti-car campaign. Only yesterday, he said:
I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates…There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.—[Official Report, 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 150.]
That apparently does not apply in a time of national crisis.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister not here? The truth is that he probably wanted to be here, but he has been told not to be here. He has become the most ridiculous figure in the Government. His attitude is so cynical that he sends his baggage by chauffeured Jaguar to the House of Commons while he takes the train to appear environmentally friendly. His contempt for Parliament is also contempt for farmers, hauliers, pensioners and those who live in the countryside—contempt for the people whom we are elected to represent. They will see that his place is empty today, and they will know that he has learned nothing from the crisis.

Mr. Bill Rammell: If we are to pursue such a fatuous debating style, I could ask the hon. Gentleman why the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was on holiday during the fuel crisis, when, according to the Evening Standard, he had been given advance notice of the protests. I shall not stress that point, because it is fatuous. The hon. Gentleman should explain why his party is being so disingenuous. It launched the fuel escalator and then disclaimed responsibility for it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That intervention was far too long.

Mr. Norman: For the sake of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), I shall ignore that ridiculous intervention. We are in a fine state when hon. Members cannot go on holiday without the country coming to a standstill. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister is on holiday now. Why is he not here? That is the question.
The Government have created a problem by increasing tax by stealth. They have turned that problem into a crisis through their complacency, and the crisis into humiliation through their sheer incompetence. They had no mandate to raise taxes; they promised not to raise them. The Prime Minister said:
We have no plans to increase taxation at all.
They promised to protect the isolated and pensioners, and not to be a tax-and-spend Government. Fuel duty has become a symbol of the tax betrayal of the British people.
There is no point in the Minister and the hon. Member for Harlow hiding behind the fuel duty escalator, although I am sure that they will try to do that. The Government had three Budgets in 21 months and they increased the escalator to 6 per cent., but they did not use the money for the environment or transport. The motorist now pays £350 more a year in tax, yet the Government have spent less than the previous Government on transport.
In one of the shabbiest manoeuvres of the Parliament, the Government said that they would come off the escalator, and they put up duty by an "inflation" increase of 3.3 per cent., while pensioners got an increase of 1.1 per cent. Seventy-five pence does not buy even one litre of petrol. What sort of a system of social justice

is that? In three years, a Labour Government have increased fuel taxes by 34 per cent. and the state pension by only 8 per cent.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why The Daily Telegraph and the AA described the last Budget as the best Budget for the motorist for eight years?

Mr. Norman: I do not believe that The Daily Telegraph supported the increase in fuel duty. It has been explicit about its view of a manoeuvre that uses a different inflation rate for pensioners from that for fuel tax. That is a shabby manoeuvre.
Let us not have any hiding behind a green smokescreen either. It is technology and not taxation that is reducing pollution from our cars. Since 1997, traffic has increased by about 6 per cent., but pollution is falling because of cleaner car technology. The only effect that the Government's campaign against car users in increasing the price of travelling by car can have is to marginalise those who can least afford to pay the price. The Government are penalising the poor, pensioners living in the countryside and farmers, whose livelihoods are threatened. The Government have used the most regressive tax for their own revenue-raising purposes. We have by far the highest fuel taxes—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Norman: I shall not give way. I wish to make some progress.
We have by far the highest fuel taxes in Europe, and there is no excuse for that. The Government have increased the annual tax on road users by £8 billion. They are driving 55,000 hauliers out of a job. Last year alone they destroyed the livelihood of 22,000 farmers. They have penalised those on low incomes who depend on the car, such as farmers, pensioners living in isolated areas and the disabled.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems that, ironically, people in the countryside—farmers, hauliers, those who work in the countryside and people living in rural areas—are paying the most for fuel even though they tend to depend the most heavily on haulage and private transport?

Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Farmers and those living in the countryside in constituencies such as his are being marginalised and penalised. We are talking about a regressive tax that hits the most vulnerable first and the Jaguar drivers last.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norman: No. I wish to make some progress.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: Yes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following the fuel protests, the Tories announced on television that they would cut


petrol by 3p a litre. The hauliers want a cut of 15p. How much is the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) offering them?

Mr. Norman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question. I shall refer later to the Brit disc. It is our proposal to—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made an intervention. He must not shout, "How much?".

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must behave himself.

Mr. Norman: The Government have masqueraded as a green Government. I have no doubt that we shall hear more about that today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The British haulage industry wants to know the answer to my question. Why cannot the Tories answer it now on the Floor of the House? What is the figure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate and have nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Norman: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is persistent, but there can be no doubt about who in the House is the friend of the hauliers. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, met representatives of the Road Haulage Association only this morning. We are proposing a cut in duty. We have proposed the Brit disc and other measures.
The Government have done nothing. Indeed, they have tried to assert that there is no need to do anything. They have masqueraded as a green Government. They have disguised their stealth taxes as something to do with the environment. Yet they have put nothing back into transport and nothing back into the environment. They have spent less on the transport system than the previous Government. The real truth is that this has been a cynical exercise in tax raising. The Minister for the Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister have proved mere patsies in the hands of the Treasury.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Norman: I shall not give way. I wish to make some progress.
Ministers cannot say that they were not warned. We told them and we voted against the previous four increases in duty. The director general of the Confederation of British Industry told them:
The Government must address the overburdening nature of tax on fuel.

Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union told them:
We have said over and over again to the Treasury that it was only a matter of time before the farmers' patience on fuel taxes runs out—the current level is extortionate.
The Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association gave similar warnings, but the Government would not listen.
The East Anglian hauliers even tried to set up a meeting. They wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Chancellor, and I have their responses. They read:
I regret that pressures on
the Minister's
time make him unable to attend.
Unfortunately, the Chancellor regrets he must decline your kind invitation.
Sadly the PM's diary commitments make it impossible for him to join you.
and
It has not proved possible to find a Minister to attend
on his behalf. They did not want to know. They were in denial.
Then the protests started. First, a small group at Stanlow oil refinery, then a few more, and then the whole country joined in.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No.
How did the Government respond that fateful first weekend? They treated the protest with provocative disdain. Lord Macdonald went on the "Today" programme when the protests first started. He had an opportunity to say that he understood and was listening, but he dismissed the protesters as un-British. That first weekend, the Secretary of State for Scotland twice claimed that the Government had not increased up duty at all. Astonishingly and absurdly, throughout the week, Ministers, including the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, carried on claiming that the Government had not put up fuel duty.

Mr. Blizzard: rose—

Mr. Norman: It would be wrong to be critical of junior Ministers alone. The real question is why it was left to them. Where was the Prime Minister? Was he touring high-tech sites trying to dodge the protest? Where was the Deputy Prime Minister? Hiding in some Chinese restaurant? [Interruption.] Where was the Chancellor? Nowhere to be seen. He was enjoying the sight of his colleagues stewing in the juice of his stealth taxes. [Interruption.]
Not until Tuesday did senior Ministers put their heads above the parapet. When they did, was it to say, "We have understood. We are listening, and we are on the job"? Not a bit of it. They tried to blame everyone but themselves—it was all the action of a small minority; it was the oil companies; it was all down to intimidation. [Interruption.] In the Prime Minister's immortal words:
It will all be getting back to normal within 24 hours.


Normal? Business losing up to £250 million a day, schools closing, shops running out of food, street cleaning suspended, funerals postponed, Portsmouth hospital running out of insulin, operations cancelled: the only things that were normal were the spin, the hype and the dissimulation. [Interruption.]
The only thing that was normal was the fact that the Government knew nothing about how business worked or how tanker drivers were employed. They thought that oil companies, like Victorian mill owners, could order their drivers back to work. [Interruption.] The only thing that was normal was that the Government looked round for someone else to blame. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a free-for-all. Hon. Members should not shout across the Chamber. That is not what I am looking for.

Mr. Clive Efford: We are trying to keep ourselves awake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will keep the hon. Gentleman awake.

Mr. Norman: The Government looked for someone else to blame. They were in denial. Even in the midst of humiliation they could not understand what had happened. The Deputy Prime Minister—I am sure he is listening—said:
I can't understand why farmers complain. They can use red diesel at 3p a litre tax.
He obviously does not understand that farmers have to drive their stock to market, their feedstuffs to the farm, and their children to school in remote areas. They cannot use red diesel for that.

Mr. Blizzard: The title of the debate is "Fuel Protests". The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning that the fuel protests had brought the country to a standstill. Indeed, he has just outlined the mechanism by which it was brought to a standstill, and the effects of that standstill. It was brought to a standstill by people blockading fuel depots. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to condemn those who parked their vehicles and blockaded fuel depots, thus threatening hospitals?

Mr. Norman: We waited a long time for that intervention, and it illustrated admirably the fact that Labour Members are still in denial. They think that it was a blockade. It was not; it was a protest. They think that it was all to do with intimidation. There was scarcely any intimidation.

Mr. Miller: That is not true.

Mr. Norman: Let me read this from The Observer, dated 17 September 2000.
Though there were instances of intimidation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal again for calm. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is entitled to a hearing.

Mr. Norman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The report states:
Though there were instances of intimidation, police say they have recorded no official complaints…Relations with the police were good. Negotiations to allow through fuel for emergency services were amicable.
A spokesman for Cheshire police, in charge of the protests at Stanlow, where the blockades started, said:
We had no reports of intimidation in Stanlow at the time. They have been logged subsequently. As far as we were concerned, with the exception of a couple of incidents, the protests were peaceful.

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I have a list, prepared by the oil companies, of 185 instances of intimidation? Is that not a reasonable source of information?

Mr. Norman: I think that the police are a very reasonable source of information. While we accept that there may have been some instances, the question is, who leant on the oil companies to prepare their list in the first place?
The Government are still in denial. They want to think that it was all down to intimidation; they want to think that it was all down to the oil companies; they want to think that it was all down to blockades. In fact, it was a tax revolt supported by most of the British people.
Just to add to the provocation during the week of the protest, a transport Minister said on "Newsnight" that he had been consulting closely with the hauliers forum throughout the year. He omitted to mention that the chairman of the Road Haulage Association had just resigned from the forum, saying:
we have been stonewalled, fobbed off and passed from pillar to post.
It was the Government who, with their arrogance and complacency, enraged the protesters and public opinion. After the famous 24-hour deadline for normality had come and gone, we witnessed the sight of a panic-stricken Secretary of State for Health threatening meltdown. The National Blood Service had to issue an announcement accusing him of scaremongering.
This had all the classic hallmarks of a new Labour crisis. First the Government denied that there was a problem; then they tried to spin it away; then they made promises that they could not keep. Finally, they resorted to scaremongering. This was a protest of their own making, turned into a crisis by their own complacency, which became a humiliation that they still do not understand.
Since then, the pattern of arrogance and evasion has continued. What could be more disgraceful than attempts, through smears and leaks—at a time when what the country needs is listening and conciliation—to claim that the crisis was all to do with blockades or intimidation, when we all know that it was not?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance and blown it; he has made far too much noise already.
The protest was supported by the vast majority of decent people in the country—hard-working people, car drivers and non-car drivers. According to the MORI poll,


it was supported by 84 per cent. of the public. Astonishingly, 76 per cent. of those who had no car supported the protest. If the Government still seriously think—as they evidently do—that they can drive a wedge between the protesters and the public, they are making yet another fatal mistake.
We are not talking about special interest groups. We understand the demands for a Brit disc scheme. We understand the case for special rebates, but people do not just want special tax breaks, loopholes or fiddles; they want a tax cut. The protest was a taxpayers' revolt. Only the Government could think of a taxpayers' revolt as a hauliers' blockade. People are saying that they want fairness and honesty in taxation. They want no more stealth tax. They want a cut in fuel duty now.
The Prime Minister sought refuge in the argument, which we heard again earlier, that a cut in tax means a cut in health or education.

Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No, I will not give way.
Everyone knows that the Chancellor has a war chest and that he is planning to spend it for his own purposes ahead of the election. He knows it; we know it; the public know it—perhaps the only person who does not know it is the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No, I will not give way. I have given way plenty of times and many other Members want to speak.
Only this week, the Ernst and Young report confirmed that there will be a £16 billion surplus this year. The fact is that the Chancellor is profiteering from the increase in crude oil prices. Every time the oil price increases by $1, he makes an extra £330 million in revenue from petroleum revenue tax and VAT. He has not only a financial but a moral duty to alleviate the hardship that he has created. If there was a green argument for increasing duty when the price was low, there can be no such argument when the price is at an all-time high.
The Government must act now to save the countryside and those who live in it. If there is a green argument, it is not about the cost of petrol and pricing people off the roads, but about the future of the countryside as a working environment in which farmers can earn an honest living.

Mr. Efford: rose—

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is not giving way. It is not the done thing to stand while another Member is addressing the House.

Mr. Norman: The Government must act to save the road hauliers who are going out of business and those who are conceding their businesses to foreigners. The number of foreign lorries is growing in this country.
The Government must act to help those who are less well off and depend on their cars. If they do not act, the public will—and the Government will have only themselves to blame—not just on the streets, but at the ballot box.
September was a watershed in the life of new Labour, and the clock is now ticking. The Prime Minister, who made his political creed out of being in touch, has now made a principle of being out of touch. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he was always available for debate, but he dare not show his face today. They created the crisis; they raised taxes with no mandate; they manufactured their own humiliation and they have been living in denial ever since. The Prime Minister said that everything would get back to normal within 24 hours. On the contrary, for new Labour, things will never be the same again.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Meacher to move the amendment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has intervened several times. Many hon. Members want to get into the debate. I have had to put a time limit on speeches and he is taking away their time. Does he still have a point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: indicated dissent.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
applauds the tough, long-term economic decisions taken by the Government to create a platform of stability on which to invest in education, health, transport and law and order, building a Britain where there is opportunity and security for all; recognises the difficulty that has been caused to some sectors of the economy due to the rapid increase in world oil prices over the past 18 months; welcomes the Government's determination to set its economic and fiscal policy within the context of the normal budget and democratic processes; deplores the previous Government's record of boom and bust and under-investment in the nation's vital public services; notes that the proportion of the cost of petrol accounted for by VAT and duty is lower than when this Government took office in May 1997; welcomes the Government's environmental record which has seen Britain lead the world in the fight against global warming; and welcomes the Government's 10-year plan to modernise the nation's transport system, cut congestion, deliver real choice and see a 42 per cent. real term's increase in spending.
May I take the opportunity—it is my first—to congratulate you warmly, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair? I hope that you enjoy your speakership as much as we are delighted to see you occupy it.
It is always a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to the Dispatch Box, on this occasion to debate the countryside, fuel prices and the environment. It is not so much what he says as the way he tells them.
One would never guess, listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech about transport and the countryside, that his Government left the countryside so denuded of public transport that, by the end of their Administration, fewer than one in four parishes had even a single bus service once a day. One would never guess from his denunciation of the fuel duty escalator that it was his


Government who started it and we who ended it. One would never guess, when he referred to his party's concern for the countryside, that his party was responsible for the biggest concreting-over of the countryside in road-building programmes since Roman times. One would never guess that the biggest invasions of the green belt—the sell-off of 3,000 acres of green belt for development, together with the most extensive damage of sites of special scientific interest—all occurred in those years of wanton destruction.

Mr. James Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will in a moment.
One would never guess, when the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells finally came to his killer fact—that his party would cut 3p per litre off fuel duty—how that was to be paid for, let alone what it would do to the environment. It would, in fact, cost more than £1 billion. That is perhaps rather small beer for a party that has a £16 billion hole in its public accounts.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was, let us be fair, an entertaining flight of fancy, but it was more devoid of answers and more full of holes than a Swiss cheese. For a change, let us turn to the facts.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will in a moment.
September saw widespread protests in the UK, throughout Europe and further afield about the cost of fuel. Those protests followed large increases, as we are all aware, in the price of crude oil: from around $10 a barrel at the beginning of last year to more than $30. That has been a global problem. Other countries affected by the protests included France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Holland and even Australia.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will as soon as I have made the point.
Since the March 1999 Budget, petrol prices in the UK have risen from 66p per litre to about 80p per litre today, an increase of 14p, but only a very small percentage—1.9p—of that increase was caused by the 2000 Budget. That was the lowest Budget increase in fuel duty for 11 years.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he is putting his explanation. What has caused the biggest increase in fuel cost? Has it the been the increase in crude oil prices, or the effects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budgets since he became Chancellor?

Mr. Meacher: Over the past 18 months [Interruption.] I can talk about a longer period if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. It is true that, under his Administration and this Administration there has been a long-term and continuing reduction in the price of oil. In 1993, the hon. Gentleman's Government decided, quite rightly in my view, to introduce the fuel duty escalator. As the

hon. Gentleman knows, we continued it because when the price of oil continues to go down steadily and over a long period it is right to remind motorists that there is an environmental external cost of motoring that needs to be read into the petrol price.
Now that we have had a tidal wave of price increases from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries it is absurd to continue with the fuel duty escalator. That is exactly why the Chancellor has abandoned it. He has also said—it is sensible and right—that he will take account of all the relevant factors—environmental and others—in determining, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate rate of duty. He will certainly take account of the environmental cost.
Having said that, I want to take issue with what was said by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. The Government have recognised—of course we have—that strong feelings are aroused by the issue of fuel prices. We have been listening and we will continue to listen carefully and in detail to those concerns. Having listened, we have already taken substantial action.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am happy to give way, but I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman about the action we have taken.

Mr. Blunt: The Government's amendment to our motion states that the Government recognise
the difficulty that has been caused to some sectors of the economy due to the rapid increase in world oil prices over the past 18 months.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any of those difficulties have been caused by the Government's taxation policies?

Mr. Meacher: I believe that during the time that we have had to face the consequences of those enormous increases in international oil prices the increase caused by Government fuel duties is marginal.
The hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that for hauliers, it is not just a question of fuel duty. They are concerned about wider taxation. If we compare the situation abroad, we can see that foreign hauliers have to pay toll duties and higher VAT. I remind the House that corporation tax in this country is the lowest of any industrialised country and that helps many hauliers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way now. I am aware that this is a short debate and that many hon. Members wish to take part. I will give way later, but I want to make some progress.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will give way to my hon. Friend later.
Last November, the Chancellor abolished the fuel duty escalator and, as a result, duty is now 6 per cent. lower, in fact it is 3p less per litre—where did I hear that before?—than it would otherwise have been. [Interruption.] I am delighted that that has pleased Opposition Members. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to shout across the Floor. It is not helpful at all.

Mr. Meacher: The Chancellor also announced that, in future, all real-terms increases in fuel duty will be put


back into investment in transport. That contradicts something wrongly said by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. Substantial assistance for hauliers was delivered at the last budget in the form of large reductions in vehicle excise duty for heavy lorries at a cost of £45 million to the Exchequer. Also, the introduction for 44-tonne lorries was agreed from next February. The VED for five-axle 40-tonners was cut by no less than £1,800 and by £500 for 38 and 36-tonne lorries.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is making the very fair point, which was made to me last week by hauliers, that much of the effect has been caused not by fuel tax policy, but by external factors. Nevertheless, does not the Minister accept that, for hauliers, the combined effect of world oil prices, the exchange rate and the tax has created a situation in which not only they, but the customers who depend on them to get their goods to market cannot survive? That is the issue that the Government will have to address.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman perfectly fairly makes the point that, as he said, the combination of all those factors at this time has produced a perhaps unique situation. That is exactly why the Chancellor has made it clear that he has been consulting extensively with all the relevant interests and that he is continuing to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the Government will be coming forward with a clear statement on the best way forward to take account of all those circumstances.
As I said, for the past month Ministers have been having regular meetings with representatives of the haulage industry, farmers and representatives of the fuel protesters. Discussions on the competitiveness of the road haulage industry—which is precisely the point just made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—are continuing through the road haulage forum. Last week, I attended the conference of the Countryside Alliance, to listen to its concerns about the impact of high fuel prices on people in rural areas, and I made it clear that the issues raised have been taken very seriously.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister now come clean with the House? Surely he agrees that, since this Government came to power, the increase from taxation has been far bigger than the increase from the movement in oil prices. As for the price of diesel—which is affecting the haulage industry, and driving it into bankruptcy—does he remember the 12 per cent. increase in 1999? That is within his 18-month period. Will he not take that into account and just come clean that it is the Chancellor who is robbing the motorist and the haulier?

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience and knowledge, but I think that he is making a very partisan and unreasonable point—[Interruption.] He knows that perfectly well. Until the early months of last year, oil prices were continuing to decrease to some of the lowest real-terms prices that we have ever experienced in the international oil industry. It was therefore entirely proper and right to continue and

extend what the previous Government had done in the fuel duty escalator, and that is exactly what we did. However, we did take account of the fact that there are substantial cost effects of doing so, and that some of the hauliers certainly would have suffered as a consequence.
It is for precisely those reasons that we have used other means to ensure that those cost pressures are reduced. The reductions in VED have been extremely large. The Chancellor may well decide to continue them, but that is a matter for him. However, we have been very well aware of the situation, and that it is not only the fuel duty that is a relevant factor.
I also wish to make it clear that the Government have repeatedly stated—I state it again now—that we will be not be press-ganged into making short-term decisions on taxation policy outside the normal Budget cycle. The Government have a duty to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and we will.
I am not here—I do not think that Opposition Members expect me to be here—to discuss the Government's future taxation plans. That is a matter for the Chancellor, and he will be making his pre-Budget report shortly. He will, as I said, make decisions in the light of all relevant factors—which include not only the level of tax, but all environmental and other factors.
If anyone doubts that, let me remind the House that he is the Chancellor who, in the last Budget but one, produced the greenest Budget ever; who is committed to a climate change programme, which we shall publish in a few weeks and will set out ambitious CO2 reductions, including in transport; and who, in almost all his Budgets, has produced a string of fiscal measures designed to encourage cleaner fuel-efficient motoring. I think that the nation can trust him to take a very sensible and balanced decision.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He made an important point about global warming and the Chancellor's efforts in greening our policies. Will my right hon. Friend make the case for the environment, contrary to the arguments from Opposition Members, as in the past decade the carbon dioxide from transport has risen from one fifth to one quarter of the carbon dioxide produced in this country? Opposition Members want to duck that argument, but the previous Government introduced the fuel tax levy because they recognised that something had to be done about global warming, which is even more important than concerns about taxation policy. It is important and that needs stating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman made a meal of that intervention.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I endorse what he said. When he and other hon. Members see the climate change programme which will be published shortly, they will see that we have fully taken on board that point.
It is not just a matter of what the appropriate taxation level should be. In 1997 we inherited from the previous Government a public transport system that was in the


most rundown state for decades. I say that advisedly. That appalling legacy undoubtedly contributed to the frustration and anger that was manifested last month.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Meacher: Having had experience of the hon. Gentleman in Committee, when he always jumped up and said, "On that point", I shall test him and find out.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. On the subject of the Government's record, there have been four increases under the fuel escalator in three years. Until last Sunday the Minister was still advocating that we should use the fuel escalator to increase prices above the rate of inflation. Is he still in favour of it or not?

Mr. Meacher: In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that my view is that the fuel duty escalator had a very real role and I respect the decision of the previous Government to introduce it. I also think that we were right to continue it. I repeat that where there is a massive and unprecedented increase in the international oil price, the role of the fuel duty escalator simply disappears and the only thing to do is abandon it. I have also said—and it is certainly the Government's position—that we are not abandoning environmental considerations. We shall certainly never do that. Indeed, they are a very strong component of the climate change programme, but we have to look at all the considerations at the right time, year by year, and that is what the Chancellor has said he will do.

Mr. Norman: Before he moves on from that point, will the Minister make it quite clear to the House whether he is saying that, in his view, if the oil price were to fall again it would be right for the Government to bring back the fuel duty escalator?

Mr. Meacher: No. I am not saying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is a matter of semantics. What I said was that we would certainly have to consider the matter again, not in terms of a fuel duty escalator, because I accept that where the international oil price is bobbing around like a cork on the sea it is absurd to put in place an escalator provision. However, it makes sense to look at the issue on a case-by-case basis, including whatever is appropriate to ensure that motorists realise the environmental externality in their costs.
In July, the Government launched a 10-year plan for transport, building on the integrated transport White Paper and delivering a £180 billion investment package to modernise the nation's transport system, to cut congestion and deliver real choice. I would point out to the House that that is a 42 per cent. increase in real terms in spending compared with the past 10 years.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way again shortly.
The plan, which will deliver improvements across all modes of transport, is designed to tackle the legacy that we inherited of under-investment, fragmentation and short termism which have resulted from 20 years or more of neglect of our transport system.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister understand that what is worrying hauliers so much is that

their businesses are collapsing because of unfair competition. They are looking for a level playing field. Businesses in the United Kingdom are being undermined by hauliers from continental Europe who have the advantage on them. In those circumstances, have the Government taken any initiative with the European Union to see whether in a common market it is possible to have a common approach to the level of taxation so that there is a level playing field?

Mr. Meacher: There has been consideration of what is called a "eurovignette" and there are other proposals to try to achieve that. The UK, of course, has been involved. We wish to ensure the continuing competitiveness of our haulage industry. There is a competitiveness section within the road haulage forum which is looking precisely at the facts and figures to ensure that we achieve that competitiveness. I ask the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to wait for the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, as that is the point at which the Government will make a formal statement in answer to his perfectly fair points.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way for the moment.
In formulating our approach to transport, the Government have been very conscious—rather more so than Conservative Members—of our environmental targets. Road transport is one of the major sources of air pollution, especially in urban areas. The transport sector is also the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, arguably, is the biggest environmental challenge that we face globally.
That is not a trendy intellectual scenario of the middle-distance future; it is with us now. In the last few weeks, we have seen the worst flooding in Kent and Sussex in living memory. Two years ago, the east midlands experienced the worst flooding for a century. France experienced the most destructive storm of the last century which killed dozens of people and caused losses running into billions. That is paralleled by similar disasters on an even greater scale across the world. I repeat that measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport will need to play a central role in helping the UK to meet its international and domestic climate change objectives.
The real lesson of the fuel crisis, in my view, is the need for us to reduce our overdependence on oil and to switch to a greater use of renewable sources of energy. The Government have already invested in a number of measures to support the uptake of cleaner alternative fuels and technology, including low rates of duty on road fuel gases. A low rate of vehicle excise duty on electric vehicles offers significant incentives for drivers to switch.
Through my Department's powershift programme—whose budget was increased to £10 million in March—we are offering more and more grants to help those who wish to purchase gas and electric vehicles. Under the 10-year plan, the Government are committed to doubling the amount spent on cleaner vehicle initiatives by 2003–04.

Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful to the Minister, who is making a careful and


reasoned case. However, will he accept that there is a world of difference between targeted measures which attack congestion and overuse of vehicles in urban areas—where there are real alternatives in terms of public transport—and the situation in rural areas where there is no alternative, where people are simply penalised and where they are the least able to pay that imposition?

Mr. Meacher: I am extremely concerned about the situation in rural areas, for which I carry a responsibility within Government. [Interruption.] I entirely accept that the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must refer to the constant barrage of interruptions. The Minister is being generous in taking interventions. It will not help hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye later in the debate if they continue their interruptions.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) makes a fair point. He knows that we have begun to address this matter by spending £170 million on rural bus services, which has produced 1,800 new and improved bus services. He may dissent—and I accept that it is not enough—but it is a great improvement on what went before. If he can bear to wait for the rural White Paper, the Government will come forward with further proposals which seek in an innovative and valuable way to try to address the particular problems of rural areas.
Those fiscal measures are programmes sponsored by the Government and will increasingly make a major contribution to our climate change programme. In addition, under the voluntary agreement which, I am pleased to say, we have secured between the EC and motor manufacturers in the western world, CO2 emissions from new cars will be reduced by no less than 25 per cent. over the next eight years. Together with changes made by the Government to company car taxation and vehicle excise duty, that is expected to produce annual savings of 4 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, which is one ninth of the target that the UK must meet.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), does he accept that in rural areas it is impossible for the excessive fuel duty increase to be passed on to customers? Will he therefore apologise to my constituent Mr. Martin Edge, who used to be president of the Road Haulage Association in Shropshire? In 1997, Mr. Edge employed 30 people, but last week he lost his business and house.

Mr. Meacher: Of course, I am sorry to hear of that case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman told his constituent the truth that the causes of the current problem go deep. They are not immediate and go back to the effects of the fuel duty escalator, which began under the previous Government and, in conjunction with other external factors, proved excessive and led to the results to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are trying to address the

matter, and the Chancellor will shortly respond with a series of measures that will begin to address the matter fundamentally.
The Government continue to reform taxation and reward those who drive cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Cleaner fuels are becoming more widespread, thanks largely to lower fuel duties, which we introduced on fuels such as ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol and gas fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. In addition, owners of cars with engines up to 1200cc benefited from a £55 cut in vehicle excise duties in the last Budget. More than 2 million vehicles benefited from that tax cut. From March 2001, all new cars will go into one of four bands based on their rate of CO2 emissions. Under the new system, 95 per cent. of new cars will pay up to £70 less tax, with a total reduction of £400 million. From April 2002, company cars will be taxed on the basis of their CO2 emissions, which should deliver savings for company car drivers choosing cars that are more fuel-efficient.
There is a clear decision to be made between the parties in this debate. In the Opposition we have a party that, during its term in office, devastated public transport in rural areas, concreted over more of the countryside than any Government before or since and abandoned the fuel duty escalator on the first whiff of populism. It is now looking to get behind what it calls a people's revolt and stir it up—that from a party that likes to see itself as the party of law and order. The Opposition are now so desperate for votes that they will promise anything—even 3p off the price of petrol—without regard to how that will be paid for or the damage that it will do to the environment.
On this side of the House, the Government have published a plan to invest £180 billion in Britain's rundown transport system, have already directed nearly £200 million into improved transport in rural areas and are determined to maintain a fair and proper balance between taxation and the needs of the countryside and the environment. The battle lines are clear, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Mr. Don Foster: Like many other hon. Members, I too was disappointed by the speech from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), which seemed full of rhetoric and devoid of new ideas. However, I agree entirely with the part of his speech that had to do with the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Chamber today.
The Minister said in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that the Deputy Prime Minister was engaged this afternoon in meetings about the closure of the west coast main line. I was advised two days ago that the Deputy Prime Minister would not attend this debate, so one of two inferences can be drawn: either the Deputy Prime Minister knew two days ago that the closures were going to happen, and therefore should have informed the House about them in his statement yesterday; or the meetings were arranged more recently, in which case time could have been set aside to enable the Deputy Prime Minister to be here for this debate.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that safety was his guiding principle. I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the arguments on either side of the fuel crisis, safety was an important feature of that crisis. If lives were not lost because of the blockades, they were certainly put at risk. If safety is the Deputy Prime Minister's top priority, he should have been here to tell the House what action the Government intended to take to ensure that lives would not be put at risk if similar blockades were imposed.

Mr. Meacher: I wish to make it clear again to the House that not only is my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister attending meetings about the closure of the west coast main line, but he is also taking part in other meetings to do with the Hatfield crash. I made that clear earlier, and the hon. Gentleman should take that information on board.

Mr. Foster: I accept entirely what the Minister says. However, my point is that it would have been possible for the Deputy Prime Minister to arrange to be in the Chamber at least for part of the debate. I, for one, regret his absence today.
However, I wish to remind the House of something else that happened yesterday, apart from the Deputy Prime Minister's statement about the Hatfield crash. For the first time in three and half years, the Prime Minister made a major speech on the environment, in which he acknowledged the explicit link between car use and climate change. He talked about the need for co-operation and leadership to press forward the green agenda, and he made it clear that time was not on our side.
The Prime Minister's speech shows that he has undergone a major conversion and demonstrates a radical shift in his thinking. If the House is not convinced, we need only look back to what was going on at the time of the fuel crisis. On 22 September, all other European countries took part in the European car-free day. Every European Government bar our own formally supported that major European initiative to draw attention to the environmental consequences of our over-reliance on the car.
The fuel crisis was a further example of the Prime Minister's welcome change of heart. Not for a minute do I wish to demean or criticise the Minister for the Environment's environmental credentials, but I wish to point out to the House that he was remarkably absent from our television screens during that crisis. Neither the Prime Minister nor any of the other Ministers who spoke during the fuel crisis at any time mentioned environmental issues in their comments.

Mr. Geraint Davies: A year ago, the Liberal Democrat party made promises involving billions of pounds of extra expenditure, almost all of them predicated on income from fuel duty and environmental tax. Overnight, however, the party decided to suspend those promises. Is that not a little odd? The Liberal Democrat policy now is that levies on fuel would not be raised for the next five years, irrespective of whether the world price of oil is $10, $20 or $30 a barrel—what hypocrisy that is.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope in a few minutes to address that very point. Whether a political party continues to believe that environmental issues are crucial but that other ways might be more appropriate to address them in the light of changing circumstances is an interesting point. That is just what we have done.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I wish to make a little progress. Unlike the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, I want to put some suggestions into the arena on how we might move forward.
During the fuel crisis, I genuinely believed that the protesters had some quite legitimate concerns, particularly those from rural areas who have no adequate public transport and no adequate alternative. The Minister told us to wait for the rural White Paper to come along and solve all these problems. However, the rural White Paper is rather like a rural bus—we wait and wait, but still it does not come along. We look forward to seeing it eventually, although we have been told it has been delayed for yet another few months.
During the entire discussion about the fuel crisis, it has been suggested that this is a simple problem that can be dealt with by simple solutions. The issue is incredibly complex, and it requires a complex solution. It must not only address environmental issues, as I argue strongly, but take into account economic issues and social justice.
We know from studies done at Lancaster university that the growing number of cars on our roads is leading to about 15 million people suffering health problems that are, at the least, aggravated by traffic fumes.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will in a moment.
We hear from the British Medical Association that traffic pollution causes at least 3,000 deaths a year and brings forward tens of thousands of others.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hope will not impale himself too firmly on the fence. Will he confirm that tax on petrol has risen by 34 per cent. in 41 months, that that rise has been far greater than that imposed on champagne, and that those two facts represent the most damning possible indictment of the Government's priorities?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his own inimitable way. I am delighted that he has as much knowledge about champagne prices as about fuel prices. I suspect that many of the people whom I represent are more concerned about fuel than champagne.
The hon. Gentleman again illustrates single-minded thinking about just one issue. We must take into account environmental as well as economic issues. We know from the Confederation of British Industry that congestion on our roads is costing British industry some £20 billion a year. As for social justice, as others have said, the poorest


people in rural areas are suffering from what might be called transport poverty. They need to be provided with assistance as well. We must address all three factors. That is why a simplistic solution, such as the one being offered by the Conservative party, cannot be a sensible way forward.
The Conservatives are suggesting a 3p cut in the price of fuel; the protesters want a 15p cut. Let us take the middle road and consider the implications of cutting the price by 9p. It is quite simple—a typical motorist would save less than £110 a year. For a person with a 1.8 litre Ford Focus doing 10,000 miles a year at 38 miles a gallon, the saving would be £109.50.
The Tories are not proposing a cut of 9p, however—they are proposing 3p. According to calculations in a note sent to me by the Library on 11 October, the savings for the average motorist on the Conservative proposals for a 3p cut would amount to £30.50 a year, or 59p a week. That is, I suppose, slightly more than the 42p a week that they are offering pensioners.
The Tory stance on such matters is all over the place. We know that Lord Lamont introduced the fuel escalator in 1993. Despite much more recent Conservative attacks on the Government on the matter, the leaked document, which many hon. Members will have seen and which accompanied the Conservatives' May 1997 general election manifesto, stated that a Tory Government would keep the open-ended commitment to increase petrol duty. When the Tories went into the previous general election, they were in favour of keeping the escalator.
I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is in the Chamber. The House will recall that at the beginning of the crisis, he suggested that there should be a 5p cut in the price of petrol. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) responded by saying that it would be wrong to change policy in response to the fuel protests. Yet three days later, the shadow Chancellor himself proposed a cut of 3p per litre. The Conservatives are all over the place.
The matter is even more interesting than that. On 31 August—hon. Members should note the date—the Leader of the Opposition put out a press release through Conservative central office. It stated that he was
calling for immediate fines on an hourly basis against individuals involved in the blockading.
The right hon. Gentleman also demanded compensation for those who had suffered financial loss and inconvenience because of the blockades.
We have noted the date. Which blockades was the right hon. Gentleman talking about? They were, of course, the French blockades. However, only a few weeks later, when it came to the English blockades, he described those who were blockading as "fine, upstanding citizens".
It is no wonder that Mr. Geoffrey Lean, in The Independent on Sunday, wrote:
The Conservative policies on transport do not progress far beyond naked opportunism.
The Leader of the Opposition, who should from now on be called "Bandwagon Bill", has really demonstrated the art of jumping on bandwagons.
During Prime Minister's questions, was it not interesting to hear that rather barbed remark made by the Leader of the Opposition about his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was a little bit miffed with the Father of the House. I know why. The Father of the House was too honest when he was interviewed on the "Today" programme on 3 October. He said:
What people are saying is that he—
that is, the Leader of the Opposition—
suddenly produces these policies out of the blue—this was certainly true of petrol—and of course then people aren't impressed.
They say you are just making it up on the spur of the moment…That is a very dangerous technique to follow.

Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) pointed out—that the Conservative party voted against the Government's previous four big increases in petrol tax? By opposing rip-off Britain at the pumps, we are being entirely consistent. Will he take back his remarks about bandwagons? We made the bandwagon; it is an extremely democratic one and it is going to win.

Mr. Foster: I do not want to trade voting records with the right hon. Gentleman. However, if he examines them, he will find that the Liberal Democrats voted in the same way as him, but we at least had the honesty to say that the reason we did so was that we believed that any money raised from the proposed increases should be ring-fenced and used to improve support for the travelling public—not least through improved public transport.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Foster: I will not give way.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Conservative party is all over the place with its policies and position.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I will not. I have made it clear that I will not.
The Conservative party policy is not even a popular policy. An opinion poll, carried out by NOP and quoted in the press on 6 October, found that 68 per cent. of those questioned would prefer to stick with the current fuel tax if it guaranteed less pollution and better road and rail links. That survey found that a similar proportion of people would prefer to have the 3p from fuel tax spent on green schemes for the environment than on a Tory plan to cut the price of petrol by 3p a litre. The Conservatives have come up with a simplistic solution, which does not address all aspects of the issue. Let me briefly discuss those aspects and the way forward.
The road haulage industry undoubtedly faces problems. Some of those problems come from unfair competition. The industry also has problems relating to overcapacity; it has not been said before, but it is true.

Mr. Paterson: Rubbish.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Foster: I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the road hauliers came to the House, lobbying very hard to have the axle limits increased from 38 to 44 tonnes, part of their argument was that that would improve productivity? As one cannot go on driving lorries indefinitely, in effect they have 10 per cent. oversupply of both vehicles and drivers.

Mr. Foster: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Although I understand the pressures from the European Parliament on this, I was very disappointed that we went down the 44-tonne lorry route, not least because of the impact that I and many other commentators believe it will have on our ability to move more freight on to our rail system. However, the haulage industry does have a problem of unfair competition with continental operators. That problem may have been somewhat exaggerated, and many in the industry now accept that, because when one considers the totality of costs, taking into account labour costs, road tolls and other forms of taxation, it can be demonstrated that the unfairness is not quite as it was initially presented. Nevertheless, I believe that there is still a further case to be made—

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Foster: No.
I believe that that could be—

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Foster: No.
The way that I believe we should be moving—the Minister has at least given a hint that the Government might be supporting this, and it now appears to have all-party support—is to make progress on the European vignette scheme and reduce vehicle excise duty further. VED has been reduced for lorries, but it should be reduced further. At the same time, we should introduce through the vignette scheme a means whereby foreign lorries using our roads have to contribute.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, just on that point?

Mr. Foster: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he insists.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful. Perhaps it may enlighten the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that the haulier who was trumpeted by the Government two years ago in the infamous KPMG report told me today that he moved his entire operation to Luxembourg—an operation which, thanks to the Government, is reduced from 100 trucks to 70. That haulier would be £1.5 million better off, which is the advantage in fuel duty and VED over the social costs and corporation tax in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should have a look at some of the latest documents put out by the bodies that represent the industry—the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association. They themselves now acknowledge that the competition argument was

somewhat overplayed at the start of the debate. There will of course be individual cases; I must talk about the industry as a whole.
What is the way forward? Many things need to be done. There needs to be a massive increase in investment in public transport. It is a great shame that, during the first three years of a Labour Government, they actually spent less on public transport than their Conservative predecessors. We need increased investment in alternative fuels. Although I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of additional funding, I must point out that, over the past three years, research into alternative forms of energy under this Government has been dramatically cut.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the time has come to deal with the two key environmental issues that matter—namely, pollution and congestion. The time has come to make a clear commitment to cap the level of fuel duties and, for environmental reasons, to deal with the problem of congestion by supporting those local authorities that want to introduce congestion charging, provided that there has already been a significant improvement in the availability of public transport.
We also need to deal with the problem of pollution. We need to go further than the Government have done so far, although we welcome the start that they have made by linking more carefully VED with the level of pollution that is caused by a vehicle to the point at which the most fuel-efficient and pollution-reducing vehicles pay no VED at all.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I agree with several of the ideas and policies that the hon. Gentleman has introduced, including those involving congestion charges, but is it not the Liberal Democrats' policy to introduce a carbon tax? Will he explain how a carbon tax can be introduced with a five-year cap on fuel increases? Would not that introduce enormous distortions into the process? How could the system possibly work?

Mr. Foster: Given that many other hon. Members want to speak, the House would not want me to give a detailed discourse on that matter, although I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman later about it. The crucial issue involves CO2 emissions and the other pollutants that come from vehicles. That is why we believe that the link that the Government established between VED and emissions is crucial. We should like to take the process further.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I shall not.
We also believe that stronger measures are required to support those in rural areas. For example, a strong case can be made for introducing rate relief for rural filling stations. There should be a specifically targeted mechanism that will help those who live in rural areas to, for example, convert to liquid petroleum gas. There should also be specific support in rural areas for alternative forms of public transport, including dial-a-ride and taxi buses. Those schemes must be eligible for the fuel duty rebate, and I look forward to the Government's


making such an announcement. We also need to promote support for car sharing and car pooling, and we understand from leaks that the Government may well do that.

Sir Robert Smith: I notice that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now present. Does he recognise that by Monday he can allow the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to help one sector of the rural economy that is greatly affected by fuel prices? It could be helped by allowing the release of agrimonetary compensation that is available, although the deadline is next week.

Mr. Foster: We all look forward to the answer that the Minister will give when he winds up the debate.
I hope that I have made it clear that this is not a simple issue and that there are no simple solutions. We need solutions that deal with the environment and the economy and that promote social justice. The knee-jerk reactions of the Conservative party—it might think that its reaction was populist—are not fully thought through, and they will not solve the real problems that concerned protesters in September.
We need a package of measures, and that is what the Liberal Democrats have offered. I am delighted that our proposals are recognised as realistic. I note, for example, that in The Independent on Sunday, the journalist Jo Dillon wrote:
Conservatives have yet to produce a credible policy at all. The Liberal Democrats, as ever, have the greenest policies. It is their policies that are most likely to resolve the growing transport crisis.
Whether or not that is true, I hope that the Government and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his forthcoming statement, will pick up on several of our positive proposals. They are not the knee-jerk reactions that we have heard from the Conservatives.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there will now be a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I am extremely disappointed that we heard no positive policies from the Opposition—we merely had a knockabout. I understand that they like to have a go at the Government but, surely, if there really is a crisis, we should have heard something positive from them about their alternative proposals.
The Opposition said how hard pressed some farmers are. I accept that some hill farmers in particular are suffering, but what did they offer them? They said that they understood that the effect of a cut in the duty on red diesel would be insignificant. Then they talked about livestock going to market. Livestock does go to market, but not so regularly that the increase in fuel duty would significantly affect hill farmers' incomes. We need to

approach the problems of the hill farmers in a different way. The fuel duty makes only a marginal difference to them.
Truckers do have problems, but there was no recognition of them from the Opposition. The basic problem for the truckers is that there are too many drivers and too many vehicles. Part of the problem is of their own making. They lobbied for much higher axle weights. They said that it would result in an improvement in productivity, and it has done so for some individuals, but it means that there is not enough work to go around.
That is not the only problem for the truckers. Britain has also seen a steady change in the amount of trucking going on. Huge amounts of coal were once taken to power stations by lorries, but most of that business has disappeared. People have gradually come to recognise that it is much better to put goods back on to the railways. For example, the construction of the second runway at Manchester airport by the filling in of the Bollin valley originally required thousands of lorryloads of limestone from the Pennines, but an extra two miles of railway were put in and it was all transported by rail.
Everyone talked about the policy of getting more trade off the roads and on to the railways, but the consequence of that is that we now have too many drivers. That is sad for someone who has become an owner-driver, mortgaging his house to do so, but such people are now in a market where there is a glut. We must look at ways in which to take some of that surplus out of the market. That will be of far more use to the drivers and the owner-drivers than reducing fuel duty because too many people are still chasing too little business.

Mr. Paterson: If the hon. Gentleman is right, why do the House of Commons figures show that, in 1997, 600,000 lorries entered Britain from the continent, and this year, 2000, it is projected that there will be 900,000?

Mr. Bennett: I accept that some extra lorries are coming from Europe, but in almost every European country the balance of trade is in our favour. It may be that we should be trying at least to protect our trade. The Opposition could have come up with some proposals, but they have not done so today. There are many arguments in favour of the introduction of a Brit disc. We need to look at some positive measures, and the first would be to reduce the number of truckers in an over-supplied market.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I speak as someone who did once run trucks: if one reduces the capacity of the industry haulage freight costs will be forced up.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that haulage costs will be forced up, but the basic problem is one of too many people looking for the business. That is why so many of them are going out of business. That has nothing to do with fuel charges.
I accept that my constituents find the fuel duty increase burdensome, but most could change their behaviour to meet the difference created by the tax. First, far more of them could simply observe the speed limits. In areas such as mine, considerable sums are being spent on installing traffic calming measures because people drive far too fast. If they drove more slowly, their cars would work more


efficiently and it would be far better for our attack on the problems of global warming if people behaved more sensibly.
In Opposition contributions to the debate, there has been no recognition of the problems of global warming.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, I have a limited amount of time.
The Opposition must recognise that global warming is a major problem. If we are to tackle it, we must all use transport less. It would be far better for us to do that now than to have to spend huge sums of money on increasing coastal defences, dealing with flooding and so on. Gradually, my constituents are accepting that message. They all say to me that, if we must use motor cars less and if we must transport goods less to deal with global warming, we need better public transport now.
I am delighted that the Government have given the go-ahead in Greater Manchester for the new metro system to be expanded. They should be commended for that, but I plead with them to consider a few more points while the Transport Bill is going through the House of Lords.
First, there is the relationship between the local transport plans and the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that the Government will consider giving a higher priority to the local plans, to allow some balance in bargaining. In my constituency, there is a conflict about the priority that should be given to people getting from Newcastle to Liverpool or simply from Guide Bridge to Fairfield. It involves the use of the same bits of track for one purpose or the other.
My next point concerns bus lanes. In much of Greater Manchester, there will not be trams. Bus lanes will work if people see the buses getting to their destination more quickly than cars, but it is important that, when we get the bus lanes in place, contracts can be let so that we have bus operators competing for the contract, rather than buses competing down the bus lane for the business. Again, in the legislation that is going through the other place, the Government could achieve a better balance.
Finally, we need to encourage one system in this country for people to pay their fares. On buses, a huge amount of time is wasted while the driver collects the fares. In most European cities, a carnet or similar system is used so that people can get on and off buses quickly, without having to slow down the entire process to pay their fares.
My plea to the Government is that they should re-examine one or two of the measures in the Transport Bill and get on with the commitment to get good public transport in place, so that we can reduce our dependence on carbon fossil fuels and make a real contribution to reducing the risk of global warming.

Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, but perhaps I should remind the House of one interest that I share with the Deputy Prime Minister: both he and I are Jaguar drivers. There is, of course, a very big difference. I have to pay for all my own fuel, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister, I believe, often has his fuel bought for him by the taxpayer.
One of the most worrying aspects of this unpleasant saga is how out of touch the Government have become in such a short time. It is not as though we failed to warn them. On many occasions, the Opposition have brought to the House the democratic cases for lower fuel taxation and for more justice for road haulage industry participants, for farmers and for the many other people who need diesel and petrol to go about their daily business.
I remember attending a Treasury Question Time long before the protests built up on streets. I asked the Chancellor the simple question: what was the price of a litre of petrol, and how much of that was tax? The Chancellor could answer neither part of the question, so out of touch was the man who had just massively increased taxes in the Budget. He did not even know that the tax was so high.
The Government have increased the tax by 34 per cent.; they increased diesel tax by 12 per cent. in one go. They ignored the advice of the Conservative Opposition that the fuel escalator was high enough. They not only stayed on the escalator, but decided to invent another, with an even sharper ascent so that even more hauliers could be driven out of business more quickly, and more people could be driven into fuel poverty on the forecourt, by the pump.

Mr. Bercow: What change of behaviour does my right hon. Friend believe that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expects from my 83-year-old, law-abiding constituent, who lives in the heart of rural Buckingham and undertakes journeys to outlying villages to perform her charity work, and is savagely clobbered by the Administration?

Mr. Redwood: The Government seem to believe that poor people have no right to drive a car. It is obvious that they will drive poor people off the roads before those on better salaries. The Government are perpetrating highway robbery without the charisma of Dick Turpin or the good intentions of Robin Hood. We are considering a pariah Government, who rob the poor to give to the rich. Indeed, they give to the super-rich; they give to themselves, and to the Treasury, which has more money than it knows what to do with, and more than it budgeted to receive. The Chancellor is about to make a statement to explain that he got all his Budget figures wrong earlier this year, and that he has a bigger surplus than planned.
The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats ask how the Conservative party would afford the cut in taxes on motorists and the haulage industry. It is easy. The windfall that the Government are receiving is huge; it is bringing in far more money than the Chancellor budgeted for only a few months ago. We do not even recommend returning all the windfall because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, is such a prudent and cautious man. However, we recommend giving some of it back because it is taxpayers' money. The Government's intention to pocket all the unexpected windfall money is a rip-off.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I must press on, because I want to make several points. The Government have made their case often, and have presented many foolish arguments. I shall deal with some of them.
We heard briefly from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the crisis. He said that, if we cut taxes now, there would not be enough money for schools and hospitals. That is entirely false. No supplementary Budget has been produced to give more money to schools and hospitals since the windfall petrol tax money started to come in. We all know that the money will not be spent on schools and hospitals. If the Government wanted to spend more money on them, they would have had to announce more spending to the House because they had not planned to obtain the windfall tax.
We were told that the Government could not change Budgets during the course of a year. Yet the summer supplementary estimates show that the Government changed their Budget plans not so long ago. They increased spending not on schools and hospitals but on all sorts of other items of public expenditure from the Export Credits Guarantee Department to Inland Revenue administration costs. They regularly change their Budget plans, as previous Governments have done, during the year. However, when it comes to a just change, for which the public is hungry, to give back some of our money, which the Government should not have taken and had not planned to take, they are strangely silent, wooden, and unable to change their mind or make an adjustment.
I do not urge the Chancellor to be imprudent or incautious with the family silver or with our money. However, if he is such a stickler for his Budget judgment, he should try to return to it. My constituents and I would now settle for the amount of tax that the Government were planning to take from motorists in the previous Budget. At the time, I believed that it was far too much, and I argued against it. My hon. Friends and I voted against it. However, we would now settle for that amount, which the Chancellor would have robbed from us, because the windfall means that he will take up to £4,000 million a year extra than those high Budget amounts.
We are then told—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he thinks that the windfall is coming from? There is not, as some have suggested, a value added tax windfall, for example. VAT receipts are pretty much on track with the Budget projection.

Mr. Redwood: The figure of up to £4,000 million comes from independent accountants and it may be an overestimate. However, a large sum is coming, primarily from petroleum revenue tax and other taxes that are levied upon those bringing oil from the North sea. A huge windfall will come directly from the price of oil. It will come also from VAT. The Minister might like to check past statements on the wonderful machinery within the Treasury. He will discover that even the Prime Minister has admitted that the Government are receiving more money from VAT than they were expecting, and that quite a bit of that extra VAT receipt will come from petrol and oil products.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: In response to the Minister's intervention, let me say that it is the Inland Revenue that has confirmed the windfall from petroleum revenue tax.

Mr. Redwood: It is a bit rich if a Treasury Minister does not know that the Inland Revenue has made

that confession. I am delighted that we are getting some value from all the extra money in administrative costs that the Government voted through in the summer supplementary estimates for the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Timms: VAT is collected by Customs and Excise. As I have made clear, there is no significant variation in VAT receipts from those projected at the time of the Budget.

Mr. Redwood: That was a carefully worded intervention. The hon. Gentleman seems to be conceding that there will be a large windfall from PRT and taxes on the oil companies. I look forward to seeing shortly the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that those commentators who are predicting that there will be a large increase in revenues compared with the Budget forecasts in May are right, and that much of that will be from the motorist or from the haulage industry. I suspect that we shall see another shortfall in spending of the sort that the Government have regularly recorded year by year but have tried to suppress.
There is no Budget case for hanging on to the money. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, taxation is bankrupting the haulage industry. It is not driving lorries off the road because it is swapping the business from British hauliers to French, Belgian, Italian and Spanish hauliers. Is that what the Minister wants? I thought that he was a British Minister in a British Government. He should stand up for the British haulage industry.
Why are the Government so dilatory in introducing the Brit disc, which the Conservative party suggested a long time ago? We think that we should charge foreign lorry operators more for using our roads and cluttering them, and charge British lorry operators rather less so that they have more chance of competing fairly. I see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) nodding in agreement. He has run a haulage business, or has been involved with one. He knows that what I say is true. We are not being fair to the British haulage industry.
In many rural areas, there are no bus services or train services that people can use, so that they might leave their car at home. The Government have done nothing to change that position. Many of my constituents in a suburban area get up every morning and draw back the curtains to see whether the integrated transport policy has yet arrived. They find that there is still no bus stop within a mile. There is still no train station within 5 or 10 miles. They have no choice. They must use their car, van or lorry to get about or to go about their business. It is high time that the Government understood that and did not tax people into oblivion for doing what they need to do because there is no proper alternative.
The Government have cruelly let down the motorist. They are now penalising him or her by their failure to get up and running an integrated transport strategy that would provide the motorist with a decent alternative. The Government decided to penalise the British haulage industry to help the foreign haulage industry. The Government decided to tax the poor off the road so that the rich and those in government can travel with fewer people getting in the way.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, once memorably said that he would fail if he did not reduce the amount of traffic on the roads.


We now discover that the only way that he has of doing that is to so anger British motorists and lorry drivers that he drives them off the road because he has driven them out of fuel.
I hold the Government responsible. When I went along the queues at the last remaining open petrol station in my constituency during the dispute, everyone told me, inconvenienced as he or she was, that the blame rested with the Government and not with the protesters. The Government should listen. They should understand that there is a strong democratic movement outside the House. They should understand also that the Opposition speak for the overwhelming majority of the nation when we say to the Chancellor, "Get these taxes down now. It is our money and we want it back. It is a rip-off. You do not need the windfall."

Mr. Jimmy Hood: It is rich for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to talk about defenders of democracy.
I want to concentrate on the politics of what happened a few weeks ago and to address the subject of the debate. Is the cost of petrol and diesel too high? Yes, and no one thinks that that is good for the economy. The question is how we can reduce the cost of fuel. It cannot be done simply through the fuel tax levy. The tripling of oil prices cannot be ignored. A few weeks ago, the Opposition promised to take 3p off a litre of fuel, but the cost of fuel has increased by almost that amount since then. Conservatives and free marketeers should know that the price of anything, including diesel and petrol, is determined by the price that the market is prepared to pay.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hood: No, I shall not give way, because a lot of Back Benchers want to contribute to the debate.
I do not accept that a cut in the fuel tax levy would automatically reduce the price of fuel. What would there be to stop the oil companies making more profit? There are great problems in the road haulage industry, but they are not caused just by the fuel tax levy. As the Minister said, there is a combination of factors.
Road hauliers suffer from the actions of their colleagues in the road haulage industry, because the big road hauliers cut the throats of the small companies. Many small road haulage businesses in my constituency are in trouble, usually as a result of the cut-throat approach of a lot of the big road hauliers who run the industry through the Road Haulage Association. The big road hauliers—not the small business man, whose interests I thought the Conservatives claimed to represent—benefit more from what the association suggests.
I want to talk not only about the many single-driver businesses in the road haulage industry but about the thousands of people who are employed as drivers. Many drivers in my constituency who are in the road haulage industry work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week. A constituent came to me last week whose husband works 70 hours a week driving a coal truck, but qualifies for working families tax credit. There are problems, but not just for those who run businesses within the road haulage industry. The industry has the problem of providing good terms and conditions for its work force. We should not ignore that.
I have been a Member of this place for 13 years. Over the past few years, we have debated how to improve our democracy, and that debate continues. We must take account of what happened a few weeks ago. We must be careful to protect our democracy. What I saw in our country a few weeks ago was far from democratic. I was criticised for making the fair point that, as a miner for 23 years, in 1984–85, when I was on strike fighting for my job and to save my community, I was treated a wee bit differently from the protesters in 2000. That has to be questioned.
The Road Haulage Association was faxing, e-mailing and telephoning its members in my constituency days before the protests. It sent people to the demonstrations and protests. To say that the event was spontaneous is just a bit rich, and I do not accept it.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—I paraphrase—referred to the Prime Minister's immortal words, "Things will be getting back to normal in 24 hours". Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately, in a sense—I was ill during those few days, and was at home watching everything live on Sky television. As I saw it all unfold, I was worried about what I saw. The Prime Minister met oil companies and the police, and then made his statement about things getting back to normal within 24 hours. In fact, within 24 hours not only were things not getting back to normal; they seemed to be getting increasingly worse.
On the Wednesday of that week, the Prime Minister had another meeting with the oil companies and the police. Within hours of that meeting, the protest was being called off. It is in that context that I raise my point about the defence of democracy, and the need to ask how we, as a Parliament, can defend it.
If what happened was a spontaneous act—a popular uprising which happened just like that, and was called off just like that, as it was—questions must be asked. What led to its being called off? I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be able to tell us for 30 years about the conversation that took place in Downing street, but I am certainly worried about it.
A Member of Parliament, the late Norman Buchan, told me when I arrived as a new Member, "Jimmy, always suspect a conspiracy until proven different". That was good advice. I am not persuaded by apparent coincidences such as the one I have mentioned. Questions must be asked about the way in which things were happening—and not just in this country. The protest began in France, came to the United Kingdom and then went to Belgium, Germany, Italy and Holland, in that order. We have been told by those who organised it here that they wanted parity in Europe.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hood: To the hon. Gentleman, I will.

Mr. Winterton: May I give an answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman has just posed rhetorically? I believe that the hauliers and farmers—who were widely supported—wanted to make a point that they could not make other than by means of a blockade. Once the blockade had shown itself to be successful, they immediately called it off because they did not want to


inconvenience the people of this country any further, or to cause dire emergencies in the health service and other essential services.

Mr. Hood: That is a rather favourable view from the hon. Gentleman, whose opinions I normally respect.
Questions must certainly be asked about the oil companies. We in Scotland were being fed information by the media, including television. In Grangemouth protesters arrived 24 hours before the protest started, and were given accommodation by guess who—the refinery. They were even given showering facilities in case they became a bit warm and dusty during the day. I suspect that the police were taking them flasks and sandwiches. There was such a wonderful, sweetheart relationship. That was not my experience in 1984.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hood: I am sorry; I will not give way because I shall finish soon.
In discussing what happened only a few weeks ago, it is not right for hon. Members to describe themselves as democrats and then condone in any way, shape or form the blockading of our refineries. Those hon. Members who believe that the protest was a coincidence and a popular uprising should consider that the SAS—the best trained troops in the world—took four or five weeks to prepare and effect the rescue of five of our soldiers who were held hostage in Sierra Leone. If it takes the best trained armed forces in the world five weeks to rescue five men in Sierra Leone, hon. Members should not try to kid me that a lot of organisation was not done behind the scenes by certain faceless, unrepresentative people. That is what I fear most about the protests.
The Government must, and will, react to the situation in the industry, and we shall hear more about that in the coming days and weeks. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should think carefully about what happened in our country a few weeks ago; it is very dangerous for anyone to condone what we all saw.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and am grateful to him for having given way to me. I am sorry that he did not take my response to his rhetorical question more seriously because I genuinely believe that several organisations, representing hauliers, farmers and people living in rural areas, were so unhappy about the fact that the Government were apparently not prepared to listen to their genuine grievances that they felt they had to take the action that they did. However, they took it for only the length of time needed to impress the Government with the validity of their case, and they ceased their action before it became a serious embarrassment to the emergency services, the health service, other essential services and people's employment. My intervention was genuine and sincere. The concern is that the Government have not been listening.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale and I spent time together at Catterick camp not many moons ago, and we got to know each other better than we have done in the

House. We respect each other for the roles that we play here. That is what the House is about: it is a matter not just of Government versus Opposition but of Members understanding the role that they play individually. I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands my position.
There is a serious problem in rural areas. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit villages such as Wincle, Wildboarclough, Rainow, Kettleshulme and Higher Poynton in my constituency, he would see areas where there is little or no public transport. There is no metro—I am delighted that the metro is expanding in Greater Manchester—and the only public transport is a bus or two a day—if that. The buses generally come at inconvenient times. The people who live in those remote rural areas and villages could not possibly have an acceptable quality of life without the use of their own cars.

Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is a good colleague and serves on my Committee.

Mr. Efford: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for rural drivers, but I wonder whether he made it when the fuel duty escalator was introduced. Between 1992 and 1997, the then Government raised an extra £5 billion. The hon. Gentleman will know that because it is the answer to the question that he tabled in 1998. What was he doing then for rural drivers, and to provide alternative benefits to people who use the roads?

Mr. Winterton: I can reply with some emphasis because, as my party in government knew well, I was voting against them more often than not. In fact, I think that I registered my first objection and vote against an increase in fuel prices way back in 1981. I have been registering my concern ever since. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) remembers my intervention. I am sorry that I was not listened to then. I have often not been listened to in this place, but there have been occasions when—I say it with some regret—I have been right and the Government of the day have been wrong.
In rural areas, there is poverty and there are people on very low incomes. To live to a reasonable standard and quality of life, those people need their car. The recent blanket policy of increasing fuel prices has been extremely detrimental to their ability to lead the standard of life that many of us expect.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly referred to Manchester airport and the extra rail link, which I supported, to take stone from the Derbyshire quarries to the second runway. It was particularly necessary because, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he is very knowledgeable about these matters—the A6, along which most of that aggregate would have travelled, goes through the villages of Disley and Newtown in my constituency and would have been totally unable to cope with that volume and weight of commercial traffic. It was for that reason that we had an extra length of rail line put in, but, in many rural areas, we do not have the regular public transport that people in urban areas take for granted. I fully support the metro.


I want it to be extended to many other areas of Greater Manchester, but we cannot overlook the position of people who live in rural areas.
I have some first-class road hauliers of international renown in my constituency. I refer to R. H. Stevens, Bell Transport, Whittakers Transport, Kirk's of Poynton and Swains of Poynton. They have the best quality wagons, maintain them to the highest possible degree and pay their drivers good wages. They are finding it extremely difficult to compete, particularly with companies that come in from the European Community. The Government must look at that.
I fully support the limited proposals—they are only limited—that have emanated from Her Majesty's Opposition. I support what we have said on reducing the price of fuel by 3p per litre. The figure is rather more if taken in relation to a gallon.
I am not making a special plea for myself. All right, I have a Range Rover. I am proud of having one. It is top of the range. I use it quite frequently to come with my wife to London—two of us, by the way, travelling in one car, for which I get one allowance. The allowance is very modest if we compare it with that which I would get as a Member of Parliament travelling first class from London to Macclesfield and from Macclesfield to London. I am saving the taxpayer a lot of money, but we do it because it can be done in the same time as travelling by rail. We are able to bring provisions and other things to our flat. We do not have to take taxis from my home to the station and from the station to the House of Commons, so there is good purpose, but I make a loss on every mile that I cover on parliamentary and constituency duties because of a decision that the House took two or three years ago. I deeply regret that.
Let us understand that rural areas are vital. If we want to depopulate them, we can do so by continuing along the present path. I know that the Government are giving some support to the development of alternative fuels such as liquid gas. If I can continue to afford to run my Range Rover in the future, I should be interested in using liquid gas instead of petrol. What support are the Government giving to the development of the fuel cell, which is an important source of energy for vehicles?
Do the Government realise that everything that is in our superstores, whether they are in town or in out-of-town shopping complexes, has to be delivered by vehicle? There is no other way in which all the goods that people want and demand in their shops can be delivered. If the price of running a vehicle is high, it will affect the price of the goods in the shops. There is so much to be taken into account in this debate. I sometimes feel that debates across the Chamber on critical subjects affecting all our constituents are sterile and too often about scoring political points.
Let us look at this matter. Transport is vital. We cannot deny people the right to be mobile as part of their job and way of life. Surely we must have a fair tax system. At the moment, that tax system is grossly unfair and weighs particularly heavily on those who are least able to pay. Let us deal with this debate seriously—I ask the House and the Government to do so.

Mr. Andrew Miller: It is always a great pleasure to follow my honourable neighbour, the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton),

a fellow Cheshire Member. I appreciate the sincerity with which he put his case—and the occasion on which he gave me a lift in his 4.2 litre Range Rover.
I want to explain to the House what happened on the night of 7 September at Stanlow refinery in my constituency—and I hope that hon. Members will listen to my observations and refrain from some of the silly language that has been used during parts of the debate.
Stanlow is a major hazard site to which unimpeded access for emergency vehicles 24 hours a day is vital. The smallest incident at that refinery must, if necessary, be able to be dealt with by the full resources of the north-west fire brigade—including units from further away than the constituency of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The emergency services need that access in case an incident turns out to be serious.
A few minutes after 10 o'clock on 7 September the refinery was blockaded, and the main oil terminal entrances were physically blocked. That is intolerable as it puts my constituents at physical risk. That is not an acceptable way to conduct a dispute, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue.
I noticed that in a press report in the Essex Evening Gazette the shadow Transport spokesman's office explained that
They were informed by hauliers that the protest would start this week.
In other words, the shadow Transport spokesman had prior notice of the incidents that were to take place in my constituency and put my constituents at risk. When reading the report of my speech, I hope that he will consider that next time he might have the good grace to tell me, so that I can inform the police and the relevant authorities because of the major safety issues involved.
Intimidation has been mentioned, and there was intimidation. A total of 185 incidents have been collated across the country. They were gathered—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) wish to intervene?

Mr. David Maclean: I apologise for intervening from a sedentary position. I was simply saying that there was prompting from the Government because the Government asked the oil companies to find out. The incidents were not reported to the police. If they had been genuine, they would have been reported at the start.

Mr. Miller: I made a rather angry intervention on the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). I accept that he knows more than I do about running a supermarket, but I suspect that I know more about cracking oil—and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border knows a little as well.
It is important to understand the safety culture that surrounds those drivers. Quite rightly, under successive Governments safety standards in the oil industry have been driven higher and higher.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Miller: No, I will not give way.
That is commendable action by the industry and it needs to continue. In one incident a driver was boxed in with a white van at either end of his vehicle, and was


prevented from proceeding. Is the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border saying that that is not intimidation? Is he saying that the leader of the protest, whom I met at about 3 o'clock in the morning on 8 September, was not being intimidating? I can read from my notes of that meeting—the only notes that exist. The leader of the protest said:
Our only objective is to stop all fuel getting out of the plant…If the riot police move on us tonight, what happened in France will seem like a picnic. I do not care if Stanlow blows up.
Those may be the words of an angry man, but that is not acceptable, and it is intimidation. I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition with my observations and asked him whether he thought that people making such comments were fine upstanding citizens. He ducked the question, saying:
Both police and independent commentators have confirmed that the protests were largely peaceful.
His language was beginning to shift. He went on:
However, on several occasions I made it clear that those organising the blockades should call them off and instead make their protests through the ballot box.
Despite the fact that the shadow Transport spokesman knew about the protest and must have known about the serious risk to my constituents, and despite the fact that it was apparently the view of the Leader of the Opposition on 13 September that people should withdraw, he did not bother to tell the Leader of the Opposition what was going on. Such protests are entirely unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) advanced an interesting conspiracy theory. I, too, recall the late Norman Buchan—and I know some of his poetry, but I shall not recite it just now. I believe that it is not possible to advance the conspiracy theory too far. The simple fact is that the road being blockaded at Stanlow was a private road. Unfortunately, it belonged not to the Shell oil company but to the Manchester Ship Canal company. At 3 o'clock in the morning it was extremely difficult for the police to find any basis in law on which to act. They eventually did act on the basis of the issues that I have mentioned, and the physical blockade was lifted.
I have seen some splits in my time. I have seen some splits in my party, and I have certainly seen some splits in the Conservative party—but what is clear is the lack of cohesion among the representatives of the farming and haulage industries. When I told the gentlemen leading the fuel protests, whom I met on the night in question, that I had had discussions with the regional officer of the National Farmers Union in Cheshire about some of the issues, they said, "NFU—do you know what those letters stand for?" I shall not say what they said it stood for. Similar remarks were made about the Road Haulage Association.
The Treasury cannot have a rational debate with a disorganised group. There has to be a proper co-ordinated structure. I do not deny that hauliers and farmers have issues that are worthy of raising, but I urge them to raise those issues through the proper channels of the Road Haulage Association, the National Farmers Union and other existing structures.
I tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will have to address both short and long-term issues. The main short-term issue is how we should

respond to rocketing crude oil prices. Just the other day, my domestic fuel tank was filled. Thanks to the Government, there was no VAT or fuel duty on that fuel. Nevertheless, because of the huge increase in the price of crude oil, the price of that domestic fuel has increased from 11p to 24p per litre in the past year.
Something has to be done in the short term. I ask the Government to consider carefully what can be done to continue downward pressure on vehicle excise duty. Such action would ensure that car ownership was not penalised, but it would not remove the pressure on those who drive excessive mileage. The fact that VED is a difficult tax to police, and is evaded by many domestic motorists and hauliers, also suggests that it should be reduced significantly. Additionally, deals could probably be done involving emissions reductions in exchange for vehicle excise duty reductions.
Technology—fuel cells and battery power have already been mentioned in the debate—offers some possible longer-term solutions. As technology advances and the nature of power transmission changes, we will be better able to decide where to find the funds necessary to support our road and other transport infrastructure. People in rural areas who tele-work from home also can benefit from a new strategy.
Today, we are trying to address an immensely complicated issue in a very short debate—[Interruption.] Opposition Members think that the issue is simple. I tell the House that we should get away from direct conflict, which does not assist the debate. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, we should get round the negotiating table, to find both short and long-term solutions that serve the interests of all our citizens.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I shall keep my comments short because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, despite the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government in the past few months, the facts are clear: the Library produced the figures showing that the price of fuel, in extra duty and VAT, has increased massively since this Government were elected. The general public do not see diesel and petrol prices in terms of percentage increases in tax as a proportion of the total price, they simply see increase after increase, tax after tax. They have become ever more frustrated at the Government's inability to handle the situation, and they want the Government to admit at last that they have made mistakes.
The Government have told the public—they told us again today—that the increases are due to the price of oil, the need to put money back into the economy and the need to save the environment, the NHS and the transport network itself. I dread to think what would happen if the Deputy Prime Minister's dream of reducing traffic congestion came true. If the Government had achieved those goals, the economy and our vital services would have ground to a halt.
I think that we all accept that the price of oil has increased greatly. However, that fact only makes the Government's spurious remarks about public services, deficits and jobs more ridiculous. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that by the end of August the increase in the cost of oil had already netted the Chancellor £930 million.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, under Labour petrol tax has increased while public services have been getting worse. If the Government want to link fuel duty and public services, they have to explain why they have given British motorists the highest petrol prices in Europe while at the same time allowing the waiting list to see a consultant to increase by almost 200,000, class sizes in our schools to increase, police numbers to decrease by 3,000, and roads in Britain to deteriorate to their worst condition in 26 years.
If the Government are really prioritising hospital spending, why do they continue to charge fuel tax on NHS vehicles? Last year, £18.5 million of the NHS budget was clawed back by the Treasury in fuel tax on ambulances and other medical vehicles. What Labour gives with one hand, it takes back with the other. Treasury Ministers might ask themselves how many hip operations or junior doctors that money could have paid for.
We are debating an important subject. During the recess I was contacted by hauliers in my constituency, as other hon. Members were in theirs, and I spent some time talking and listening to them. It is a sad situation. They told me that their livelihoods were being destroyed, and their industry was becoming fiercely uncompetitive. They are at their wits' end. They also told me that no one listens to them. At least I listened. I also gave them my assurance that I would push the Government for answers to the questions that so many of them asked about fuel taxes in Britain.
Hauliers in my constituency told me that they hoped that the Government would not do deals in smoke-filled rooms with the oil companies just to get themselves off the hook of possible future protests. Hauliers want real solutions to real problems, and a long-term plan to ensure that our haulage industry can get back on the toad. The facts are that the price of fuel duty is too high, that the Government can afford to reduce it, and that, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the haulage industry is on its knees.
Fuel is a vital commodity to my constituents. They use their cars not as a luxury item but to get to work and to the shops, and to get their children to school. They are not impressed by the Government's tired rhetoric or the way in which they continually pass the buck. My postbag, like that of many of my colleagues, has demonstrated the breadth and depth of concern about fuel prices. The view in my constituency is that enough is enough.
A disabled driver in my constituency sent me a copy of a letter that he has written to the Deputy Prime Minister. He wrote:
As a result of this government's policies, many people are trapped in rural areas, with no alternative to the "infernal" combustion engine. You call tax on fuel "indirect tax". You are wrong. When there is no alternative, such a tax becomes very direct and very painful.
The concern expressed in that letter is being echoed across the country.
Another constituent wrote:
I am willing to add my voice to the thousands of others protesting about the unacceptable price of fuel in this country. The general public…have complete solidarity with the activists because we all know that we are being bled dry in this country by indirect taxation. Is the Government trying to kill off what's left of our industry?

I have passed that correspondence to Ministers, and I await their reply. How does the Minister respond to my constituent who sums up the Prime Minister's response to public outrage at the high level of tax in Europe as
pay my price for petrol or walk…?
My constituent continues:
Marie Antoinette took a similar view when the price of bread became unaffordable, and we all know what happened to her.
My constituents will not be impressed by the Government's failure to put forward a senior Minister to answer our and their concerns. They will not be impressed by the Government's stubborn refusal to reduce taxes despite their electoral promises, nor by the fact that the Government are blaming everyone but themselves for a problem that is of their own making.
The Government can call on the police for support. They can call on the armed forces to force through fuel supplies. They can call on motorists to leave their cars at home and struggle to work and school on inadequate public transport—but when the time comes for a general election, the public will have the last call on the Government.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Let me say first that I disagree whole-heartedly with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I consider hon. Members' car allowances to be extremely generous and I would willingly see them cut if it would encourage hon. Members to use smaller vehicles that are more fuel efficient.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is willing to tolerate the bully-boy tactics that resulted in cancelled operations and radiotherapy and losses for business in my constituency. It even provoked the comment from the brother of Brinley Williams, one of the protagonists in the campaign, that he had lost a considerable amount of money. He accused his brother of playground bullying.
My constituency is a large rural area and it has not taken recent events to make me aware of the concerns of many of my constituents who rely heavily on their cars to gain access to essential services. It is an issue that I have been raising with Ministers for the past three and a half years, unlike the Opposition, who have pursued one course in office and another out of office.
Although the Opposition may wish to focus the debate on fuel taxation, a glance at the other underlying issues will show that it is precisely because of their action, or in many cases lack of action, that the United Kingdom faced the problems it did during the protests in September.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech. He has intervened many times and I have only 12 minutes.
It is important to look at the underlying issues. They include the declining world oil supplies and the failure of former UK Governments to plan for that decline; the level of continued dependence on fossil fuels and the failure of past UK Governments to invest in alternative energy supplies and to recognise the need to support essential


services in rural areas so that people are now more than ever dependent on transport to reach those essential services.
In Pembrokeshire we have two oil refineries, one in my constituency. They were both affected by the blockades in September when protesters held the country to ransom. Other specific issues highlighted at the time included emergency planning, the role of the oil companies in recent events—I shall turn to those in a moment in relation to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—the implications of changes by the previous Tory Government in 1992 to the oil warehousing regulations and whether we are prepared to allow a group of bully boys, however noble they see their cause, holding the country to ransom without any comprehension of the damage that they have caused to others in society.
In relation to dependence on oil, during the protests I received an e-mail from a group of oil experts and academics pointing out that by 2009—only nine years away—it is estimated that world demand for oil will exceed supply. If that is correct, it is inevitable by the very nature of supply and demand economics that oil prices will escalate. That brings me to my second point: the failure of the previous British Government to invest in alternative sources of energy and renewables in particular.
I recently returned from a trip to Denmark with the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group. Denmark has a commitment to renewable energy and has already met its target for energy production from renewable sources of 1,500 MW by 2005. The UK is producing only 350 MW from renewable sources.
Until recently, electricity generators were unable to produce energy from wind turbines economically—due, regrettably, to the unfortunate lack of action on the part of the previous Government—unless they applied for sites with wind velocity of between 8.5 and 9 m per second. This put pressure for sites in some of the most wild and beautiful locations in the UK and resulted in 89 per cent. of such applications being refused by planning authorities. The previous Government failed to address the issue.
Only now has the system changed and I am told that energy generation would be viable from sites with wind velocity of 7 m per second. This opens up the possibility of development on redundant and auxiliary power station sites currently not used. These are mainly in industrial settings and do not threaten our wild and beautiful areas. A conversation I had with a representative from National Wind Power on my recent visit to Denmark indicated that this could open up a further 1,000 MW of wind turbine production. Those issues are crucial to the debate and show the extent to which the Opposition, when in government, let the people of the United Kingdom down.
My constituents depend heavily on their cars. In many instances this can be traced back to the action, or lack of action, by the previous Government to support rural dwellers. We have already heard that by 1997 only one in four parishes in rural areas had a daily bus service. The previous Government closed 30 rural schools a year and 3,000 post offices while they were in office. I recall from my own experience as a member of the Dyfed-Powys police authority the closure of rural police stations and the refusal of the previous Government to allow our local

police authority to increase the number of officers. The introduction of market forces into health services meant increased centralisation as a result of funding pressures and led to the need for rural dwellers to travel to reach those services.
Fuel taxation—which the Opposition have tried to concentrate on this afternoon—is high and we are faced with a dilemma. I want my constituents to be able to access the services that they need, but we must also have a mind to future generations. If we fail to do that, we are not behaving responsibly.
In 1997 the Tories said on page 386 of their campaign guide:
Fuel duty has been progressively increased since the November 1993 Budget to help fulfil our commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Road fuel duties were increased in both 1995 and 1996 in line with the Government's strategy of annual increases averaging at least 5 per cent.
Why have they suddenly shifted to irresponsibility? It smacks of sitting on the fence and facing both ways depending on which audience they are talking to. Surely the responsible approach to the dilemma of fuel taxation is to use the taxation to restore services in rural areas, to invest in alternative fuels and vehicle technology, to reinvest in renewable energy to meet the future needs of British industry and to target motoring tax breaks at essential car users, such as those in rural areas.
It is also interesting that the Conservative party website refers to fuel prices in Denmark and Holland as being 73p and 75p respectively. I have visited both countries in the past few weeks. Those are indeed the fuel prices, but the Conservative website does not mention that in Denmark income tax starts at 50 per cent. and increases to 75 per cent. while in Holland it starts at 40 per cent. and increases to 55 per cent. That compares with a starting rate of 10p and a standard rate of 22p in the UK.
I now turn to the protests in September and their impact on my local area. The staff at the Elf refinery in Milford Haven were quick thinking and coped extremely well with what could have been a serious safety problem. I cannot praise them enough. Although I have only praise for the local refinery employees, I question the role of the oil companies as multinational organisations in these events. Had it been a trade union dispute, I am sure that there would have been no question of protesters using refinery facilities such as canteens, showers and toilets. I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale that the same happened elsewhere.
Indeed, when I visited the refinery at the time of the dispute there was a line of Portaloos on the grass verge outside the refinery for the use of the protesters. That is hardly an indication of a spontaneous protest. It is also interesting to note that on 20 September the Evening Gazette reported that the wife of the Opposition Transport spokesman explained that they were away on holiday because they had been informed by hauliers that the protest would take place the following week and they had planned to be back by then. I would like a detailed investigation into the role of the oil companies and others in these protests which caused so much inconvenience and hardship to my constituents.
I am concerned about the shortcomings in emergency planning. Throughout the UK, we have emergency planning teams that look at all sorts of potential incidents. This one was overlooked. I would like the Government to


look at the oil warehousing regulations which mean that supermarkets keep a small stock of supplies while oil refineries must keep over 60 days' supply.
Finally, I hope that the House will uphold the principle that bully-boy tactics employed by any group against society as a whole—however noble they feel their cause to be—are unacceptable.

Mr. David Maclean: The Government and Labour Members still have not learned, have they? They still have not listened to what is going on out there. We have heard today about thugs, bully boys and blockades. We have heard about conspiracy theories, and hon. Members have been critical of the RHA and the NFU for not pulling together. There cannot be much of a conspiracy if everyone was doing their own thing.
The fact is that those protesting in my constituency were hard-pressed owner-drivers, farmers and rural people. It was a spontaneous and popular uprising against the highest fuel prices in Europe.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), criticised the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), for not appearing on television. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not appear on television. I regard him as an honest and decent Minister. He is too honest for his own good, as he found out on Sunday when he admitted that the Government might bring back the escalator. We saw Ministers getting their orders to go on television and tell whopping big untruths about thuggery, intimidation, violence and the imminent collapse of the health service. There was a whole pile of spin and propaganda. Despite the fact that I think that the right hon. Gentleman has policies that are totally wrong, I know that he is too decent to do that dirty, grubby work for the Government.
We heard today about climate change which, of course, is happening. However, it is not being caused solely and uniquely by Britain. The burden of solving the problem should not fall only on United Kingdom businesses. China, India, the United States—these huge consumers of fossil fuels are putting infinitely more pollution into the atmosphere than Britain and should play their part. Why have the Government decided—and boasted after the Kyoto summit—that Britain would take a heavier share of the burden than anyone else?
Oil prices have risen in the last few months and are now up to approximately $35 a barrel. However, oil is the same price throughout the world. The French are paying the same price for crude oil as we are in Britain, yet their fuel is taxed at least 15p a litre lower than ours. The Germans pay the same price for crude oil and their fuel is taxed at least 20p lower than ours. That is why our people protested and why small business men, farmers and lorry drivers protested against a situation that the Government created.
Although I am happy to defend the Minister for the Environment on many occasions, I cannot defend one aspect of his speech today. He was very careful to pick a finely defined time limit, saying that, in the last 18 months, crude oil prices had risen and therefore that the oil price has had a disproportionate effect, rather than the Government's taxation policies. However, the Government boast that they reinvented history from May

1997 and that a new world order began when they came in. The Government have been in power now for three years and it is perfectly legitimate to compare the price of fuel in May 1997 with the price now. In May 1997, the average price was £2.68 per gallon. In September of this year, the average was £3.91 and there are some parts of the country where the price is more than £4 per gallon.
Since May 1997, it is not the price increase in crude oil that has resulted in us having the highest fuel costs in Europe; it is the extra taxes imposed unfairly by the Government on our motorists and businesses because they want to bring in extra revenue.
We have heard stories today about intimidation and, no doubt, there was some. I deplore it, as everyone does. But it was nothing like on the scale of the gross exaggeration that we are hearing from Labour Members and the Government. If there had been intimidation, the British police service would moved immediately to stop it.

Mrs. Lawrence: Does the right hon. Gentleman describe as intimidation the names of tanker drivers who wanted to carry out deliveries being given to protesters, who did not threaten the drivers on the line but their families in their homes?

Mr. Maclean: If people were threatening families and individuals in their homes, of course that is intimidation and there would have been some disgraceful examples, which we all deplore. However, the Government are trying to pretend that that was on a massive scale and that everyone was doing it. That is not the case at all, as the police said.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) complained about the cosy, relaxed atmosphere on the picket line and at protests, with police and protesters having amenable relations. That, of course, was because there was very little violence and intimidation. The police made it clear that if any single driver wanted through, they would move heaven and earth to make sure that that vehicle got through. That is their job.
As the police pointed out after the Prime Minster appeared on television on that Tuesday night—like a startled rabbit caught in the car headlights—to say that the police would get things through, if owner-drivers were asked by protesters not to go through and decided voluntarily not to do so, there was nothing the police could or should do. Any single driver who wanted to get his vehicle through was allowed to do so.
To begin with, some people did pull vehicles across the road. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was careful in his language and said that, at a certain time on the night of 7 September, there was a blockade. How long did it last? When the police asked those involved to move their vehicles to the side, did that not happen almost instantly? When the police said to protesters that they could not stop vehicles and must stand at the side of the road, did they not, on nearly every single occasion, obey that? Of course they did. The Government cannot pretend that an unrepresentative bunch of people blocked the roads and that people who wanted through were stopped, as that is not the case.

Mr. Bercow: Are not the conspiracy theories which we are now hearing a pitiful example of buck-passing by


Labour Members who, for 41 months, have voted for policies that made their local industries less competitive and undermined the living standards of their constituents? Is not it right and proper that they should pay the price on polling day?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those were exactly the words that I intended to use when I came to that portion of my speech.
The Government must realise that when our hauliers, farmers and rural businesses are faced with the highest fuel duty and the highest vehicle excise duties in Europe, as their businesses go bankrupt and people are laid off, of course they will wish to protest about it. They are desperate to save their businesses. The Government have got to accept that that is the case. They must stop their propaganda exercise of looking for conspiracies and trying to colour the picture.

Miss Anne Begg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I must conclude.
The Government are trying to blacken the names of those who are protesting in case there is another dispute. If we are looking for conspiracy theories, we should go back to what happened last week, when the BBC suddenly came up with a programme out of thin air, putting on the airwaves a "Today" programme about the terrible intimidation that had apparently taken place a few weeks before. That intimidation was not reported to the police at the time—indeed, it was denied. When the BBC was asked whether it was put up to it by the Government, a spokesman would not comment.

Mr. Paterson: Millbank tower.

Mr. Maclean: Well, we have got our answer there. How convenient that, on the morning that the BBC decided that there was an apparent intimidation problem that they had not been able to find before, despite efforts to do so with millions of cameras around the country. The BBC was desperate to find examples of intimidation that it could show on television à la miners' strike. It could not find those examples but, two weeks later, unsubstantiated reports appeared. On the day that the fuel task force met, the Home Secretary was able to talk about threats and intimidation, a few hours after the "Today" programme introduced the issue.
Yes, there was a conspiracy, which relates to Millbank and Downing street. We saw that as Minister after Minister was put up to a propaganda exercise, as well as the disaster of the Secretary of State for Health giving an outrageous line on television, which was later denied by the health authorities. The Government have a chance to listen to the protesters who are deeply worried about their situation. Having been given that chance, the Government should listen and cut duty to the rate that existed at the last Budget. The windfall that they have suddenly got from rising oil prices is the people's money, and they should return it to them.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I realise that time is short and that I must keep my comments to a mere two or three minutes.
This is a serious and important debate. I am disappointed that more Members have not been able to speak and, indeed, that there are few of us in the Chamber. For a variety of reasons, the cost of fuel has caused deep anger and frustration, especially in rural areas. I speak for my constituents in Shrewsbury and Atcham in a very rural part of Shropshire, and I have a long history of supporting rural car users and road hauliers in their bid to reduce the price of fuel.
I would like to put on record the fact that I have had several meetings in London and Shrewsbury with Ministers and road hauliers. I presented a petition to Parliament on this very subject in March 1999 and even went on the national BBC programme "Panorama" to call for Government action.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marsden: No, I am sorry; I have one minute left.
I have been criticised by the left of my party, the right of the Conservative party and even the Road Haulage Association, so I feel that I am starting to get something right. The problem is complex and difficult and, as many hon. Members have said, revolves around many factors. There are no easy solutions: we do not need quick-fix Tory tax gimmicks, but well thought out policies.
I shall put the matter in context. My postbag contains far more post from my rural area about health, education and wider transport issues than about the specifics of fuel tax which nevertheless are important. The effects of the tax on rural areas have been underestimated, although in 1997 the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that poor and rural areas bear a disproportionate effect of the high cost of fuel.
I should like to pay tribute to Shropshire's public services for what they did in those seven days in September to bring fuel into the county. I played a small part on the Wednesday evening, when the leader of Shropshire county council told me that not one litre of fuel could get through, and that that was starting to jeopardise essential services, such as day care, home help and the fire service. The Royal Shrewsbury hospital had to cancel operations, schools were closed and there were even food shortages. It was a desperate time.
Some small rural road hauliers have genuinely suffered. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said about overcapacity, but I should like to mention Jim and Tina Jordan, whom I have known for several years. In October 1997, fuel cost them about 28 per cent. of their haulage business's annual turnover of £400,000, but that proportion is now about 40 per cent. Before Opposition Members get too excited, the year before we were elected, the Jordans spent 31 per cent. of their turnover on fuel. Initially, therefore, the Labour Government helped to bring down that cost.
I am calling for urgent action from the Government. We have 19 days to go and I fear that the protesters will be back. We need a far more genuine and sympathetic understanding of the annoyance and anger in rural areas and must pressurise oil companies to reduce profits and


educate the public to use cars less. We need international action to pressurise OPEC and the EU. We need targeted help now for rural groups, including small road hauliers, essential car users and low-income groups. We also need a new ministry of rural development to start to co-ordinate rural policy better.
In summary, I urge the Government to act in the pre-Budget report and urge the protesters not to return. Above all, we do not need Tory tax gimmicks, but real action to help my constituents in the countryside.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Listening to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), I wonder why he voted for the increases in fuel duty.
We heard two contrasting speeches at the opening of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) delivered an incisive, analytical speech with flair and imagination, in complete contrast to the ducking and weaving of the Minister for the Environment, who has not bothered to turn up for the winding-up speeches. I am not surprised at that—in fact, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is still a Minister after his speech, which left Government policy on the fuel duty escalator in complete tatters.
At the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman made a gaffe in a television studio, when he said that the escalator might be brought back. The Treasury was put on the back foot, and The Independent reported:
No plan to use the fuel escalator, insists Brown…The Chancellor said he had no plans to bring back the fuel duty escalator under which the cost of petrol automatically rose.
The same day, The Guardian said:
Meacher is rebuked for floating fuel tax escalator…Government spokesmen said ministers had no intention of bringing back the escalator.
In a big article, The Daily Telegraph said:
Brown on defensive over fuel escalator…The Chancellor's intervention followed an unguarded remark from Michael Meacher, the environment minister, who suggested that the escalator could be brought back if world oil prices dipped suddenly.
Could the policy be clearer after that statement from the Treasury?
Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, the Minister for the Environment talked about the escalator and said that the Government would look at the matter on a case-by-case basis. What does that mean and what is the policy now? How much does the price of fuel have to fall before the Minister will consider the matter on a case-by-case basis? Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is replying to the debate and has the benefit of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sitting beside him, provide clarity on the policy? What is the Government's policy on the escalator?
For millions of people the length and breadth of this country, the car is a necessity, not a luxury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) said, that message is hopelessly lost on the Government, who continue to attack the car and its use at every opportunity. Just nine months after the election, the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), was asked "Are you prepared to tax us, to persuade us, force us even to get out of our cars?". He replied, "Yes, indeed." He was as good as his word.
The facts are inescapable. In May 1997, the average cost of unleaded petrol was 59p a litre; today it is about 80p. The amount of tax on a litre of such petrol was 46p in 1997. Today it is 61p—an increase of 34 per cent.—yet the Chancellor consistently blames the high price of oil. He is obviously not aware that Britain has almost the cheapest pre-tax petrol in the European Union. behind Germany. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) noted in his excellent speech, adding on tax causes Britain to leap to the top of the price league, with petrol that is 23 per cent. more expensive than the EU average.
The reason is straightforward. In the Government's first 21 months in power, they held three Budgets and increased petrol by at least 6 per cent. above inflation each time—that is three annual increases in less than two years. In the 1999 Budget, the Chancellor increased diesel duty by 12 per cent., with a devastating effect on hauliers and farmers.
The net upshot is that, under Labour, people are paying about £7 a week more for their petrol, at a time when the old-age pension has gone up by just over £5 a week. There is the rub: this Government are different from Labour Governments of old. Under Denis Healey, Labour was honest—he said that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked. Six weeks ago, the pips squeaked all right, except that it was not the rich complaining but ordinary people—hard-working families, and struggling pensioners trying to live on the extra 75p a week. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, the families hit hardest are those on the lowest incomes. The rich can afford £350 a year, but people on low incomes in the Labour party's heartlands are the ones who are feeling it most.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I will not give way; I do not have the time.
As we look back on the 20th century, we see that the motor car has been the most liberating influence of our time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, it has freed millions to lead their lives as they choose. That freedom is now under attack. The cost of motoring is overtaking the costs of housing and food as the single most expensive item of expenditure in the household budget.
However, the Government's unflinching hostility to the motorist was best illustrated when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the "Today" programme on 11 September:
What people need to answer is if they want to see a cut in fuel duty, 2p off a litre is £1 billion of public spending. Where are those cuts going to occur?
That was a plain and straightforward statement by a senior member of the Government. It was straight intimidation of the British public.
The Secretary of State was saying that cuts in fuel tax mean cuts in spending. He got his cue from the Prime Minister, who earlier had said:
Cutting fuel duty by 2p would cost almost £1 billion…but you don't hear them talking about putting up signs outside hospitals saying the numbers of doctors and nurses will have to be cut because the Government doesn't have enough money.


What both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were saying was that cuts in fuel duty as a result of continued protest would lead to cuts in public expenditure. Labour Back Benchers quoted that statement like parrots, and according to them schools and hospitals were all under threat—what absolute bunk.
It has been authoritatively reported that, with tax revenues overshooting and Departments underspending, the public sector financial surplus will be huge. Ernst and Young estimates it at £16 billion this year, £10 billion more than the Treasury expected. I see a smile on the face of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
The windfall from the rising price of crude oil will be substantial. The House of Commons Library has been advised by the Inland Revenue that a 30 per cent. increase in the world oil price to $29 a barrel would raise North sea revenues by around £1.7 billion in a full year—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
The oil price today is at well over $31 a barrel, and the Treasury has the extra bonus—

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is the custom of the House that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman gives way at least once during a wind-up speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether or not people responding from the Dispatch Box give way is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Ottaway: Let us therefore have no more rubbish from the Government about their being unable to afford to make a cut in fuel duty because public expenditure will have to be cut as a result.
The Government's handling of the fuel crisis was lamentable. They were taken by surprise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said in his excellent speech, the Government were out of touch. They were not listening to our road hauliers and farmers, whose livelihoods were being destroyed, nor to hard-pressed businesses and families hit by Labour stealth taxes. The Government did not listen to the nurse going to her night duty, to the mother picking up her children from school, or to the pensioner nipping down to the shops. For all those people, the car is a part of their lives.
The Government did not listen to a nation that said, "Enough is enough." During the crisis, it took them four days to find out what was going on. The pumps in Sedgefield were closed. My mother-in-law was seen walking down London's Cromwell road with an empty fuel can, but it was not until the luvvies of Islington could not get to the delicatessen to buy their sun-dried tomatoes that the Government knew that they had a crisis on their hands.
Asked why he thought there was widespread discontent, the Prime Minister said, "Well, I hear the occasional story of that." He should get out more. He said, "Leave it to me. In 24 hours, everything will be back to normal." However, the next day things were even worse.
The Prime Minister was busy saying, "Crisis, what crisis?" I will tell the House what sort of crisis it was: it was a crisis of judgment, management and, above all,

trust. If the public cannot trust the Government, they will quickly replace them with a party that they can trust. How can people trust the Labour party when the Deputy Prime Minister behaves as he does? The Daily Mail last Friday carried a story headlined, "Prescott's public transport strategy: He takes the train, his luggage goes by Jaguar". When his spokesman was asked about that, he said that the Deputy Prime Minister liked to travel by public transport.
The Conservative party has long argued for lower taxes in general, and for lower taxes on petrol and diesel in particular. We support the Confederation of British Industry's call for a cut in fuel tax. If we were in government now, we would not be cutting fuel duty—we would not need to, as we would never have got into this position in the first place.
The Conservative party has consistently believed that fuel taxes should be lower, and we have voted against the increases in fuel duty. Between now and the next election, the Chancellor has the opportunity to reduce taxes. If he can, he should; if he will not, we will.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): It is worth reminding the Opposition of a few basic facts. The previous Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator in 1993 at 3 per cent. but raised it to 5 per cent. in the same year. Figures published with their last Budget showed that the escalator would carry on.
Our much-thumbed copy of the Conservatives' campaign guide for the 1997 election stated:
Fuel duty has been progressively increased since the November 1993 Budget to help fulfil our commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels—
not a matter that we have heard much about from them this afternoon. The document went on to talk about that being in line with the previous Conservative Government's strategy of
annual increases averaging at least 5 per cent.
That is the basis on which they hoped to be elected. If we had carried on with the previous Government's fuel escalator, taxes on fuel would be higher than they are now. However, we abolished the fuel duty escalator, and we have reduced the rates of vehicle excise duty for 4 million motorists.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that the Conservative party argues for lower taxes. That may be true, but it does not deliver them when in government. The previous Conservative Government solemnly pledged that there would be no tax increases, but then they introduced 22 Tory tax rises—the largest number ever. That is the record of the Conservative party, and people have not forgotten it.
However, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, yesterday told a House of Lords Select Committee that he would scrap the independence of the Bank of England in setting interest rates if he thought that it was being incompetent. Frankly, when one compares what happened when the shadow Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury with the record over the past three and a half years of the Monetary Policy Committee that this Government established, there is little doubt about whose judgment


most people would trust. How can anybody now have any confidence of stability in interest rate arrangements under a Conservative Government? Even now, they have not learned the lessons of boom and bust. They would simply repeat the same mistakes all over again.
We have had to make some tough choices over the past three and a half years. Those tough choices have delivered unprecedented economic stability, benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom. We have put public finances back on track. We have converted a £27 billion deficit at the time of the election into a £16 billion debt repayment last year.
The results are clear: last week's unemployment figures were down to levels that we have not seen since the 1970s. By reducing debt and cutting unemployment, we can allocate money that under the Conservatives would have gone to debt charges and unemployment benefits to better public services instead—schools, hospitals, transport. That has happened not despite the decisions that we have made on taxation but because of them. That means no irresponsible lurches on tax policy and no reckless moves to jeopardise this vital new stability in the economy, which is so important for the future of all of us.
We entirely understand the concern over high fuel prices which has been expressed in recent weeks. We are listening to road hauliers, petroleum retailers, motoring organisations and members of the public. I particularly take the points made about those in rural areas. We have been listening carefully to them.
Let us look at the record on the haulage industry, to which a number of hon. Members have rightly drawn attention, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Let us see how the haulage sector fared under the previous Government. Let us compare the most recent year—1999–2000—with 1992–93, when the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, became Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that year, bankruptcies in road transport ran at nearly twice the current level. Company liquidations were more than twice the current level. The figures were more than last year's level in every year while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury. That was the price that the road transport industry paid for Tory boom and bust—twice the pain of today. Of course, it was not only the haulage industry that suffered but the entire economy. No, there will be no going back to Tory boom and bust.
The Lex Transfleet report on the Freight 2000 survey shows that haulage firms, on the whole, in the United Kingdom are planning expansion in the coming 12 months. The report concludes:
this illustrates some optimism in the industry.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, some parts of the haulage industry have serious problems, and I will come back to them shortly. However, the last thing that hauliers need is a return to the Tory instability of the past.
As well as their success in managing the economy, the Government have also been right to use the tax system for environmental objectives, in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment at the start of the debate. We have provided duty cuts for cleaner fuels and lower vehicle excise duty for cleaner cars. We

have successfully used fuel duty incentives to improve local air quality, through duty differentials for ultra-low sulphur diesel and the new one for ultra-low sulphur petrol which has taken effect this month.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we have a low rate of duty for road fuel gases. This morning I met promoters of bio-diesel. We are interested in fuel cells and other developments as well.
The overall increases in fuel duties in recent years have played an important role too. They have given clear incentives to design more fuel-efficient vehicles, limit unnecessary journeys and consider alternatives to the car. Those have played a significant part in putting us on track to meet our Kyoto commitments. Real-terms increases in fuel duties between 1996 and 1999 will produce savings of between 1 and 2.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. That is a substantial contribution to achieving our climate change objectives, and a contribution that I believe all Members will welcome.
Fuel prices have risen since the Budget, as they have in the rest of the world in response to the actions of OPEC and to demand and supply in the global oil markets. The right response is to address the source of the increase, which is OPEC. That is why the Government have been taking international action to help persuade OPEC to increase the supply of oil and to take steps to bring down its price. We look forward to an enhanced dialogue between oil producers and consumers at the international energy forum next month in Riyadh. We welcome OPEC's recent production increases, and we want it to deliver existing commitments to increase output again and to take additional measures if prices remain unsustainably high.
Rural communities are typically more dependent on the car, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said. That is one of the reasons we have reduced VED on small cars. For many people, a car is a necessity, but even in rural areas many people are without a car. There can be acute travel problems for those in rural areas seeking work, young people, elderly people and those with a disability if they do not have access to a car. That is why we are so committed to supporting public transport in rural areas. That is why the 10-year investment programme in transport is so important in both rural and urban areas.
Let me say a little more about haulage. We are committed to a strong and successful road haulage industry. We have been listening carefully to hauliers and other businesses over recent weeks to ensure that we understand fully the pressures that they face. I have taken part in a number of those discussions, and three things are very clear. First, the way in which fuel prices affect haulage firms varies according to their circumstances. Some firms can pass on higher costs but others simply cannot. Secondly, the competitive pressures affecting the industry depend only in part on the level of fuel prices. There is some evidence of overcapacity in parts of the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out. However, there is also a shortage of trained drivers, the industry's most valuable asset.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend's comments tend to back up what was said at the


30 discussions I have had with haulage firms in my constituency. If he wants to know the views of the many haulage firms in Cleethorpes, I will send him the results of the survey. It mentions overcapacity, lack of drivers and competitive pressures in addition to fuel costs.

Mr. Timms: I would be delighted to see that survey, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done on that issue.

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Timms: I will not give way again. The hon. Member for Croydon, South did not give way.
All those issues have been raised with us in the road haulage forum that we established more than a year ago and of which I am a member. We meet regularly with representatives of the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Transport and General Workers Union and others in the industry. The forum has proved very constructive in helping shape our approach to the haulage industry.
We have, for example, reduced vehicle excise duty on lorries facing the most intense international competition. We reduced the industry's vehicle excise duty bill by £45 million in the previous Budget. That is why the Freight Transport Association maintained at the time of the Budget that
for transport this has been a positive Budget—the morale in the industry is a whole lot better off.
It is worth recalling that The Daily Telegraph called the Budget
the most motorist-friendly in 8 years.
The Automobile Association said:
this is the first time drivers can take some heart from a Budget in over seven years.
We are committed to securing a strong and successful United Kingdom haulage industry. The kind of direct action that we saw in September, however, is not the way to influence the Government. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for his account of what happened in his constituency. Nobody in the House should wish the Government to take decisions in response to such action.
At the beginning of the debate, the House will have been dismayed by the refusal of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells to condemn intimidation—as all of us certainly should do. The Government will make their decision in Budgets, not in response to blockades. The key priorities for hard-working families, for hauliers and for businesses throughout the country are to lock in the new stability, which provides a platform for building a more prosperous Britain and has already achieved the lowest levels of unemployment for a generation, and to take steps to address the environmental challenges that we all face. The Government are delivering on those priorities; they will be at the heart of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's pre-Budget report when he delivers it to the House in two weeks' time.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 378.

Division No. 311]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldry, Tony
Key, Robert


Beggs, Roy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bercow, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Leigh, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maples, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mates, Michael



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Duncan, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Duncan Smith, Iain
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hayes, John
Thompson, William


Heald, Oliver
Townend, John


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel






Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Whitney, Sir Raymond

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Peter Luff and



Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Baker, Norman
Cohen, Harry


Ballard, Jackie
Coleman, Iain


Banks, Tony
Colman, Tony


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael



Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Crausby, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blizzard, Bob
Darvill, Keith


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dawson, Hilton


Brake, Tom
Dean, Mrs Janet


Breed, Colin
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burnett, John
Drew, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drown, Ms Julia


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Cable, Dr Vincent
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Efford, Clive



Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fearn, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Follett, Barbara


Chaytor, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)





Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lammy, David


Foulkes, George
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Galloway, George
Laxton, Bob


Gapes, Mike
Lepper, David


Gardiner, Barry
Leslie, Christopher


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Levitt, Tom


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gidley, Sandra
Linton, Martin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Goggins, Paul
Love, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McFall, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hancock, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Harvey, Nick
McNamara, Kevin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNulty, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mallaber, Judy


Hill, Keith
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hood, Jimmy
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howells, Dr Kim
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Merron, Gillian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hurst, Alan
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Mitchell, Austin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moffatt, Laura


Illsley, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moore, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)



Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Norris, Dan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Oaten, Mark


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keetch, Paul
O'Hara, Eddie


Kemp, Fraser
Olner, Bill


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
O'Neill, Martin



Öpik, Lembit


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Khabra, Piara S
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Pearson, Ian


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pendry, Tom


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda






Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pound, Stephen
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Powell, Sir Raymond
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Temple—Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Todd, Mark


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyler, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tynan, Bill


Salter, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Sanders, Adrian
Ward, Ms Claire


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
Webb, Steve


Shaw, Jonathan
White, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woodward. Shaun


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Mike Hall

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 159.

Division No. 312]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Charlotte


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Alexander, Douglas
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Begg, Miss Anne


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)





Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Bermingham, Gerald
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flint, Caroline


Blizzard, Bob
Follett, Barbara


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chaytor, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Denham, John
Kemp, Fraser


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy. Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dowd, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Lammy, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie






Laxton, Bob
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lepper, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rogers, Allan


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Miller, Andrew
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Morley, Elliot
Temple—Morris, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mountford, Kali
Timms, Stephen


Mudie, George
Tipping. Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don



Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tynan, Bill


Pearson, Ian
Walley, Ms Joan


Pendry, Tom
Ward, Ms Claire


Perham, Ms Linda
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
White, Brian


Pond, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wills, Michael


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)





Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woodward, Shaun



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Heald, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Beggs, Roy
Jenkin, Bernard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bercow, John



Blunt, Crispin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Body, Sir Richard
Keetch, Paul


Boswell, Tim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing E)



Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brake, Tom
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brazier, Julian
Kirkwood, Archy


Breed, Colin
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Loughton, Tim



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cash, William
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chidgey, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clappison, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Major, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cotter, Brian
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moore, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Norman, Archie



Duncan, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Duncan Smith, Iain
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Faber, David
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gidley, Sandra
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sanders, Adrian


Greenway, John
Shepherd, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hancock, Mike
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Harris, Dr Evan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harvey, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond






Syms, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Willetts, David


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Willis, Phil


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Tyler, Paul
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyne, Andrew



Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Peter Luff and


Webb, Steve
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House applauds the tough, long-term economic decisions taken by the Government to create a platform of stability on which to invest in education, health, transport and law and order, building a Britain where there is opportunity and security for all; recognises the difficulty that has been caused to some sectors of the economy due to the rapid increase in world oil prices over the past 18 months; welcomes the Government's determination to set its economic and fiscal policy within the context of the normal budget and democratic processes; deplores the previous Government's record of boom and bust and under-investment in the nation's vital public services; notes that the proportion of the cost of petrol accounted for by VAT and duty is lower than when this Government took office in May 1997; welcomes the Government's environmental record which has seen Britain lead the world in the fight against global warming; and welcomes the Government's 10-year plan to modernise the nation's transport system, cut congestion, deliver real choice and see a 42 per cent. real term's increase in spending.

Teachers (Supply and Recruitment)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to the next Opposition debate, and I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the growing crisis of teacher supply and recruitment which is affecting the quality of education in the country's schools; notes that there has been a net outflow of teachers from the profession since 1997; deplores the Government's complacency and failure to deal with the underlying problems leading to the decline of the teaching profession; recognises that, unless action is taken, education standards will fall in the future; and calls on the Government to set the schools free, give heads the power to exercise discipline policy in their schools, rid teachers of the excessive bureaucratic burdens they face and let teachers teach.
I am sad that, despite all the warnings that the Government have been given over the past two years of the growing crisis in teacher supply and recruitment, today we face a worsening problem and a Government unable to recognise the damage that their policies are doing to the quality of education for children in our schools.
We should be absolutely clear. This is not just a debate about teachers; it is about children and the standard of education that they receive. That standard is falling and will continue to fall. [Interruption.] shows just how out of touch Ministers are with what is happening in our schools that they choose to laugh. However, the standard of education will continue to fall as long as the Government do nothing to improve recruitment and to stem the tide of teachers leaving our schools as a direct result of Government policy.
Conservative Members cannot debate this subject without first putting on record our recognition of the hard work and commitment of hundreds of thousands of teachers in our schools and our gratitude to those who carry on despite the burden of bureaucracy and in the face of Government interference. It is the children who matter, but their education is suffering. It suffers when there are not enough teachers in schools; it suffers when there are not enough specialist teachers; it suffers if schools have to rely on a constant supply of temporary supply teachers; it suffers when teachers are stressed out and have their non-contact time removed and have to work increasing hours to carry out their own teaching requirements and to cover for vacancies.
There is already evidence of the impact on standards. Professor Howson of Oxford Brookes university—when commenting a month or two ago on this year's key stage 2 maths results in London, in which a third of inner-London boroughs made little or no gains at all—said that
the results might be an indication that teacher shortages in the capital were having an impact.
Teacher shortages are severe. [Interruption.] Perhaps, instead of debating with the Liberal Democrats which party Professor Howson is a member of—an entirely academic debate between Labour and the Liberal Democrats these days, given their pact—the Secretary of State would have the courtesy to listen to what is being said.

Mr. Edward Garnier: One of the facts to which the Secretary of State might care to listen and


which my hon. Friend can add to her magazine of ammunition to destroy the Government's credibility, is that, in the district of Harborough, three primary school heads are retiring early this year as a direct consequence of the Government's activities, and it is impossible to find replacements for them.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House of the reality of the Government's policies, which is that schools are being left without head teachers and children's education will suffer as a result. I have no doubt that the teachers in the schools in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency will work their hardest to ensure that children's education does not suffer, but, as a result of the Government's policies, too many schools find that their heads are leaving and that they cannot recruit replacements, and education and children will suffer.
In a report earlier this year, the London chief education officers group told Ministers that it was concerned that there was a potential crisis in the staffing in schools in London. Croydon was recruiting in Australia; Tower Hamlets reported a desperate situation in primary schools and was thinking of recruiting in New Zealand; Merton reported that the situation was worse than ever; Kensington and Chelsea spoke of pockets of despair in some primary schools, not related to the standards of the schools; and Southwark was concerned about the quality of applicants.
It is little wonder that the situation is so bad. The Government have failed to meet their target for recruitment into initial teacher training in each of the past three years. During the past three years, there has been a net outflow of teachers from the profession. Applications for maths and science postgraduate certificate of education courses, with the Government's golden hellos, have slumped below the levels that prompted the launch of the initiative in the first place. Last year, the intake for maths trainee teachers was less than half the required number, and for technology teachers it was two-thirds down on the target. Late last year, the Government even slashed the recruitment targets for technology teachers by a third and they still failed to meet the target.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Lady therefore explain how come last year recruitment to initial teacher training for maths teachers rose for the first time since 1994 and for science teachers for the first time since 1996?

Mrs. May: The hon. Lady can quote what figures she likes, but the reality is that the Government are missing their targets. It is simple. There are not enough maths or technology teachers, and the Government are failing to address that particular problem.
To meet the targets for teacher training of graduates in modern languages and maths, about 40 per cent. of all graduates in those subjects would need to go into teaching every year. The number of teachers this year is 2,000 below the required number and during the past year there has been an increase in the gap between the supply of and demand for teachers, and that is on top of estimated vacancies of 17,000. House of Commons figures show that, if nothing changes in the teaching profession up to the year 2004, the overall gap between the number of

teachers available and the number of teachers required could grow to 31,000. In other words, on that basis, in five years time, we would be 31,000 teachers short.

Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Lady has done a good job of setting out the problem, but can she explain what she proposes to do about it? Surely she does not propose that simply the election of another Conservative Government will make a difference. Does not the solution have something to do with alternative salaries for some of these well-qualified graduates?

Mrs. May: I can well imagine the Liberal Democrats embarrassment when they hear the reality of the Government's policy being set out as clearly as it is today, but if the hon. Gentleman will have some patience, I shall come to his point. In the meantime, if he wants an instant answer, I suggest that he reads the motion.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is in danger of being unfair in simply criticising the Labour Government. We in Dorset have a Liberal Democrat-controlled county council running the education authority, which is failing time and again. When we have good Conservative policies getting the money down to the schools, we shall cut out those Liberal Democrats who are stopping teachers from being employed.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the iniquities of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils, from which my constituents suffered until May this year when, I am pleased to say, the royal borough of Maidenhead and Windsor returned to Conservative control.
The time bomb that is ticking away under our schools may be even more explosive than the figures that I have given suggest. More than 50 per cent. of the teacher work force is now over the age of 45, and how many of them, faced with the increasing pressures of life under the Government, will soon be looking for early retirement? We already have schools on a four-day working week—Beechwood school in Slough and Corby community college. As was clear when I spoke to the head teacher of Corby community college, that was done reluctantly, but it has happened. It is interesting that Corby community college has gone on to a four-day week, but the Labour-controlled local education authority could afford to send someone to stand around outside the school while I was meeting the head. That person was not doing anything, just standing around. That is how Labour spends money that should be going into our schools.

Mr. Phil Hope: Would the hon. Lady care to take this opportunity to apologise to the House and the people of Corby for riding her Tory bandwagon into Corby, kicking Corby kids and making a political football out of Corby community college, something that has brought the Conservative party and the hon. Lady's reputation into severe disrepute?

Mrs. May: I make no apology for visiting schools in Britain. I make no apology for visiting schools such as Brooke Weston technology college outside Corby, which I was due to visit on the same day that I went to Corby community college, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.


I make no apology for visiting Corby community college and hearing what is happening in schools. The problem today is that it is those on the Government Front Bench who fail to understand what is happening in our schools. It is to those on his Front Bench that the hon. Gentleman should direct his attack, not to those on the Opposition Front Bench.
We also know that more schools are likely to go to a four-day week. A school in Medway will be going on to a four-day week within a few days, and more are thinking of following suit. Whatever the statistics showing the size of the problem, they do not show the real impact on children and teachers. The head of a Roman Catholic school in St. Helen's described recruiting as
trying to empty Lake Michigan with a dinner fork.
The deputy head of East Sussex community college said:
Trying to appoint a maths teacher…became the dance of the demons with schools phoning each other in desperation.
In their recent report "Coping with Teacher Shortages", Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson reported one head describing how, on hearing that a candidate had not been appointed in a neighbouring school, he immediately rang the head of that school and asked that she be bundled into a taxi so that she could be interviewed and recruited straight away.
The quality of candidates is falling, as reported last month by the head teacher of Chaucer school in the Secretary of State's constituency, which has lost a quarter of its staff in the past year. The lack of applicants for posts means that standards of appointments sometimes fall, as has been reported in the survey conducted recently by the National Union of Teachers. One head said:
I was in great danger of losing the teachers of the other two classes due to stress and violence, so we took this lady on after a 20 minute interview on the phone to Australia. It was an act of faith.
Another said:
I had doubts about the references and offered it to her on a one year contract which she accepted. As the year wore on, I became more and more grateful that I'd listened to that small voice. People who are not up to scratch are gaining employment when they wouldn't if there were a reasonable choice.
Sadly, another head said:
When push comes to shove you've got to put a body in front of the class. So long as you know they are not going to kill a child or maim them—what choice do we have.
That is the situation to which the Government have reduced our schools.
Sometimes the situation seems close to farce. Another head reports:
We have got technologists who teach art. The PE staff teach a bit of maths, a bit of geography. The maths teachers, when we appointed the three, we had to say "You'll be teaching a bit of science, is that all right?" just hoping that they did not say "On your bike".
Faced with an increasingly desperate situation, what attitude do the Government take? Last week, in another place, the Minister was asked about the crisis. What response did the noble Baroness Blackstone give? She said:
My Lords, I think it is a little exaggerated to describe the overall national picture as a "crisis".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 881.]

"Crisis? What crisis?" seems to be the leitmotif of Labour Governments, and that complacency is all too clear to the schools.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Perhaps the Minister in the other place was referring to the private sector. Is my hon. Friend aware that Lichfield cathedral school tells me that preparatory schools in the private sector have no problem in recruiting, because there is now a drift away from the state sector? Teachers do not want to work in the state sector any more, because of the burden of forms and red tape imposed by the Government and the sheer lack of resources in the state sector.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, teachers are leaving the state sector and going into the private sector precisely because of the problems created by the Government. The private sector has the freedom to deliver the packages for those teachers, and offers the freedom in the classroom that the teachers want.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mrs. May: I will take one more intervention, then I must make progress.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady referred to a school in my constituency that has gone on to short-time teaching. It is a secondary modern school, and one of the reasons for its difficulty in recruiting—not the only one—is the fact that it is a secondary modern school. She said that the same might be about to happen in Medway. Am I right in thinking that the school to which she referred is also a secondary modern school?

Mrs. May: I suggest that the hon. Lady look closely at what is happening in our teaching profession. It is not a question of whether a school is a secondary modern, or the type of school. The problem is caused by a leeching from the teaching profession because of her Government's policies. If she wants teachers to come into the profession, and if she wants to retain teachers in the profession, she should be talking to those on her Front Bench. She should remind them of the problems that they are causing in schools across the country, including in her own constituency.
Ministers have not listened to the problems that have been raised. One head teacher reported to the National Union of Teachers:
There must be four or five schools in this authority with serious vacancies for teachers but we got a written reply from a minister saying there is not a recruitment problem.
If there is not a recruitment problem, why have the Government made teaching in London a shortage occupation for immigration purposes? The statistics and the quotes show the same story all around—a story that the Government have refused to accept or understand.
On the one hand, Ministers say that there is no problem; on the other, they claim that they are solving it by throwing money at it. Ministers are fond of telling us how successful have been their incentive schemes—golden hellos, money for trainee teachers—and we even had the spectacle at the Labour party conference of the Prime Minister claiming that the new bursaries for student teachers had led to a 50 per cent. rise in graduate applications.
That is typical of the Government. They think that, if they spin a story long enough, it will become fact. The reality of graduate applications was set out in an answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) from the Minister for School Standards, in which she showed that postgraduate applications have fallen since 1997.
There has been a small increase of 388 applications over the past year, according to the graduate teacher training registry. The Prime Minister said that applications were up by 50 per cent. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us under what part of the numeracy strategy 388 becomes 50 per cent. of 30,000. I should be happy to take a response from the Secretary of State, but it seems that none is forthcoming. In any case, the reports from universities, colleges and schools show that the Government are well missing their target, and that is even ignoring the 7 per cent. fall in undergraduate applications.
One of the factors with which the Government have never got to grips is that expressions of interest, or even applications, do not always turn into enrolment on courses. The advertisement about what makes a good teacher was supposed to lead to an increase in interest. Where did it end? The Government missed their targets for recruitment. In the case of the golden hellos, the target was also missed. Similarly, in the case of trainee salaries, "Teacher training misses its target" yet again, according to a headline in The Times Educational Supplement.
I received a letter earlier today from the Secretary of State about the debate this evening. He referred to my
new-found concern for teacher recruitment—
[HON. MEMBERS: "What a cheek!"] Yes, it was quite cheeky. I suggest that the Secretary of State look back, if not to my first year in the House, when I raised the issue as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, then to 1998, when I joined the Front-Bench team and first started speaking about the problems that the Government were creating in teacher recruitment and supply. It is the Secretary of State who has lost credibility by not being interested in the problem, as teachers and governors will tell him.
In his letter, the Secretary of State goes on to refer to
your party's plans for substantial spending cuts in education.
That is yet another example of the Government clutching at straws and plucking figures from thin air, in a desperate attempt to make people forget the large sums of money that the right hon. Gentleman and his local government friends hold back from our schools year after year. We will increase the money received by schools. He might not like it, but we will do it.

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I shall finish dealing with the letter, if I may.
The Secretary of State claims that the Labour Government's introduction of teacher training salaries has
already prevented the substantial reduction in recruitment to teaching which may be expected with a tight graduate labour market—
just like that! When Ministers have been asked about the reports that they have missed their targets in respect of training salaries, they say that it is too early to tell,

so how do they know that the problem of teacher recruitment has been solved? That is yet another complacent statement from the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman deals in his letter with the expansion of the graduate teacher programme and asks whether I will support that. I believe that we must consider different ways of bringing people into teaching at various stages of their life, but I want to see the whole of teacher training changed, with the emphasis on training in schools and learning the craft of teaching. I want to open up the recruitment market for teachers, getting rid of the rigidities in the system.
That will be a far more significant change of approach than tinkering at the edges, as the Government have done, because of their complacency. They offer a bit here and a bit there, but the problem remains.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. In the letter, I argued that the problem with her policy was that the Opposition cannot refuse to acknowledge that they will match our spending, and then undertake to spend money on teacher recruitment from the centre. Teacher recruitment funding does not come from delegated budgets to schools. It comes from the £180 million that we have allocated for the teacher recruitment and bursary programme and for the school-based graduate salaries that we introduced. I challenge the hon. Lady to say tonight whether she would match the £180 million by 2002 that we will be spending on that issue.

Mrs. May: I have already responded to the Secretary of State. It is not a question of one programme or another. We must consider the whole issue of teacher training and recruitment—the entire package that teachers are offered. We must ensure that teachers come forward because they want once again to do the job of encouraging children to learn in our schools. Sadly, teachers are turning away from that because of the bureaucracy and red tape coming from the Government.

Mr. Richard Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: I shall give way just once more.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There is an important point for anyone who is at university and considering a career in teaching. If the Conservatives were re-elected to government, would they get rid of the golden hellos, the graduate salaries and so on, keep them or enhance them? We need to know that, and graduates need to know that when planning their careers.

Mrs. May: I make this promise to anyone who is considering teacher training: when they come into teacher training under the next Conservative Government in the near future, they will have a far better time in teaching and be able to exercise their professional judgment in the classroom in a way that they cannot do under the present Government.
That brings me to the overwhelming reasons that teachers give for leaving the profession. They are leaving in droves because of increased work load and stress


through the growing burden of red tape and bureaucracy, and the problem of discipline in schools. The Government are doing nothing about it.
When Teresa Heys, a primary school teacher for more than 20 years, left to become a chauffeur, she said:
I was faced with masses of paperwork every day, which was very time consuming and not what I became a teacher to do.
She is not alone. A secondary school teacher in Shropshire said:
I am leaving the profession early in order to move up to the Lake District and escape from ridiculous pressures of the current workload: a move in the interests of my prospects of longevity: the job is definitely detrimental to one's health at the moment.

Mr. Blunkett: Oh dear.

Mrs. May: Yet again, the Secretary of State shows that he does not care about what goes on in our schools and that he is out of touch with the reality of pressures that teachers face. Those pressures are driving them out of the profession. We are considering not only teachers, their longevity and health, but the quality of education for children.
The words of a teacher from a primary school in Yorkshire echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) about Lichfield cathedral school:
I will be leaving the profession to work in the private sector…I feel let down by this Government, whom I believe have done nothing to recognise or encourage experienced classroom teachers like myself.
We could cite story after story, and quote after quote from teacher after teacher, all suffering because of the Government.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State felt an ounce of sympathy for head teachers such as Marjorie Evans and the predicament in which she recently found herself, he could have expressed it? He did not do that because he feels no sympathy.

Mr. Blunkett: Because it is a Welsh matter.

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State's response to teachers who are worried about the way in which malicious allegations can be made against them, and who find their names dragged through the press and their careers ruined, is that it is nothing to do with him if it happens in Wales. His attitude is, "It's a Welsh matter, so I wasn't going to say anything."

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State's comment was revealing. Although the incident may have been a Welsh matter, it worries teachers throughout the land. The Secretary of State's complacency shows how out of touch he is.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Teachers across the country are worried about malicious allegations, and ministerial complacency is breathtaking. Teachers fear that they will be the subject of a malicious allegation, have their names dragged through the press, and have their careers ruined and lives shattered.

More than 80 per cent. of such allegations are false. We are committed to providing teachers with the anonymity that they need until the police press charges. Teachers deserve our support in the face of malicious allegations from pupils. I hope that the Secretary of State will commit the Government to follow our lead and adopt such a policy of teacher anonymity.
Teachers are also worried about discipline. The Government amendment is complacent and claims that they have given head teachers,
the powers to deal effectively with discipline for the first time.
Teachers throughout the country know how hollow are those words. Until the Government give teachers real power to deal with disruptive pupils and get rid of the fines that are levied on schools that do not reach their targets to reduce exclusions and abolish those targets, teachers will not have the powers that they need to discipline disruptive pupils.
One of the key problems that face teachers is red tape and interference from the Government. Last year, one circular was issued by the Department for Education and Employment for every hour of a teacher's work. That robs teachers of time that should be spent in the classroom or preparing lessons. It saps them of energy and enthusiasm and takes away the ability to inspire children. Education should be about inspiring children. Teachers want to ignite the spark in all children, whatever their abilities, that creates a thirst for knowledge and understanding, and an interest in their subject. Exhausted teachers, desperately covering for vacancies that are not in their departments, barely have time and energy to prepare a lesson, let alone ignite the spark of inspiration.
Our teachers are working desperately hard to maintain standards, but the Labour Government have loaded the dice against them. They impose yet more targets and bureaucracy, they name and shame and they centralise. They sap the teaching profession's morale, which sinks lower and lower. The Government's approach, symbolised by the attitude of Government Front-Bench Members this evening, and their sedentary interventions, shows how out of touch they are and how little they care about what happens in our schools.
Unless the Government act now to cut red tape, and stop centralising and interfering in schools, the move out of teaching will continue. The Government will realise that all their tinkering constituted a mere pebble in the ocean. People who express an interest in applying to be teachers will not apply, those who train will not take up teaching posts and teachers will continue to leave. That is not simply a debating point; it is vital if we are to provide a decent standard of education for the country's children.
As one person who is closely involved said, the system is close to meltdown. I hope that the Secretary of State can turn his mind from dreams of becoming Home Secretary and focus on the problems in his Department. Tonight, if the Secretary of State merely promotes his incentives once more and fails to address the underlying problems, the message that he sends to teachers, parents and governors is that he is not interested in the problems that they face from day to day, and that he has closed his ears to their pleas and set his face against the necessary action to reverse the tide of decline. There is a desperate need to set schools free, give head teachers the power to exercise discipline, rid teachers of the red tape and bureaucracy that bedevils them and let teachers teach. The next Conservative Government will do that.
If the Government continue to centralise, interfere, tell teachers how to teach and increase red tape, they will let down not only teachers but children. Standards of education will fall and people will know where the blame lies: with an arrogant, complacent and out-of-touch Labour Government, and Labour will pay the price.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the successful new measures introduced by the Government to support teacher recruitment, including training salaries, incentives for shortage subjects and an expanded graduate teacher programme; welcomes the fact that there has been a significant increase in applications and acceptances for teacher training as a result; further welcomes the support given by the School Teachers Review Body for the Government's plans to better reward good teaching; notes that there are nearly 7,000 more teachers in post now than in 1998; further notes that primary and infant class sizes have fallen after rising annually under the previous administration; recognises that headteachers have got both the resources and the powers to deal effectively with discipline for the first time; and commends the work of the Government in addressing specific recruitment difficulties in London and the positive and pro-active approach of this administration towards recruiting and rewarding teachers more generally.
Can I say how good it was to experience the gems of wisdom that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) presented, which took us so much further forward in finding solutions to problems? Of course I cannot. The hon. Lady did not come up with a single solution to the problems. She cannot match the spending to which we are committed for the next three years because her leader and shadow Chancellor will not help her to do that. She could not say whether she would retain and spend the £180 million on the recruitment programmes, the graduate teacher salaries, the bursaries, and the incentives in London to ensure that teachers are in the classroom. She could not give us an assurance that she would increase teachers' salaries and match the performance-related promotion because she cannot commit those on her Front Bench to matching our spending.
Tonight the hon. Member for Maidenhead has offered nothing but doom and gloom. I have some advice for her. I advise her not to pretend—to use words such as "crisis" when there is no crisis. There is a problem in specific parts of the country, including London and the south-east. That problem must be addressed. However, there is no universal problem or crisis, and to suggest that there is undermines the commitment of those, including teachers, who want to attract young and old alike back into the classroom. They want to encourage people to come into one of the best professions in the world.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when a problem becomes a crisis?

Mr. Blunkett: The problem became a crisis when the Conservatives were elected in 1979, and started to cut spending on education and undermine the teaching profession.
It is important that we compare like with like. Our use of statistics must be understandable and deeply honest, and the hon. Member for Maidenhead has not used them

in that way. It is also important to compare like with like in terms of the economic and labour market situation with which we are faced. We should reflect on what happened in the late 1980s, before the genuine crisis that was created—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What crisis?

Mr. Blunkett: It was a crisis. I think that everyone accepted that Black Wednesday was a crisis. It wasted £15 billion of our national reserves. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I consider Black Wednesday to be a crisis.
We are talking this evening of a real challenge to us all to get things right. Let us compare like with like.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment.
Let us compare full-time posts, not temporary and supply teacher posts. Let us ensure that when we make a comparison we get it right. Let us consider whether what has already been put in place is making a difference. In other words, have we recognised that there is a problem? Yes, we have. Have we done something about it? Yes, we have. Is it beginning to work? Yes, it is.
The problem should not be addressed only by the Department for Education and Employment and the Teacher Training Agency. They alone should not put measures in place to deal with it. It is one that should be considered across government. Conservative Members never recognised that when they were in government. That is why the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working with my Department on the start-up programme for attracting and encouraging young people to come to London by providing the scheme that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be announcing shortly. We want to ensure that teachers can buy or rent a house. That is a significant difficulty in London at present. Indeed, it has been a problem in London over many years.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead, in her litany of local authorities having difficulties, mentioned Tower Hamlets. In 1989, there were 450 permanent vacancies in Tower Hamlets. It is reasonable to use 1989 as a comparison after the 1988 boom. The comparison includes the labour market, the rise in salaries and the competition for good graduates. If we compare 1989 and the present situation, we arrive at a reasonable view of what has been happening.
There were 5,500 vacancies in the teaching profession in 1989, and 3.7 per cent. of those were in London. There are now slightly fewer than 3,000 vacancies throughout the country, and 2.7 per cent. of those are in London. Vacancies throughout the country are slightly less than 1 per cent. That is comparing the figures that were available in 1989 with the figures that are now available.
Let us take the Library figures. They include part-time and supply teachers, which the Department does not include in its figures. The figure of 429,000 which the hon. Member for Maidenhead has put out to the press cannot be compared with the 404,600 which we acknowledge in terms of normal statistical arrangements.
I do not demur from the Library's statistics. Taking the exemplification that they make, I do not say that there would not be the sort of shortfall that the hon. Lady has outlined. I am sorry to disappoint her, but I will not go into statistical doublethink or doubletalk and suggest that the problem would not arise. The problem is that the Library statistics were based on the January count: 10 months ago—not now. At the beginning of the year we recognised that a major problem was afoot. We understood that if we did not take action there would be a genuine crisis. On 30 March—a fact that the hon. Lady seems to have ignored—we announced a package of measures, to which I have referred. The package was expensive, but necessary to ensure that we reversed the decline in teacher recruitment.
The package is working. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the efforts of the Teacher Training Agency and those of local authorities that are trying genuinely to recruit. Above all, it would undermine the efforts of head teachers, whose job it is to fill vacancies. It does not help to try to get smart 10 months later; to undermine the efforts that are being made to recruit; and to play down the measures that have been put in place. A failure to acknowledge that we have put measures in place to recruit and that there are nearly 7,000 extra teachers in the classroom compared with two years ago is similarly unhelpful. The 7,000 have been recruited to reduce class sizes and to relieve the pressure on teachers that the hon. Lady has described.
Yes, there is pressure. There will be pressure. There was pressure when I was a teacher. There needs to be pressure, and also mutual support. It is a difficult job. It will always be a challenging job. I will always be able to read letters from teachers who would prefer to leave the profession and live in the Lake district. There are times when I would like to go to live in the Lake district, and tonight is one of them. However, I shall have recovered by the morning. When I have recovered, I shall continue to take the pressure because it is worth it. Similarly, it is worth being a teacher.

Mrs. May: Given the right hon. Gentleman's comments, is he rejecting the figures that were sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) not 10 months ago—not in March—but one month ago, by the Minister for School Standards, which show clearly that there is still a fall in applications for teacher training this year?

Mr. Blunkett: I am denying none of the statistics in terms of their severity or impact. I am suggesting that the take-up of places from the autumn has risen by 5 per cent. overall. There is still a problem when it comes to maths, but there has been a dramatic change in technology, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will refer when she replies.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I have just given way to the hon. Member for Maidenhead. If I give way constantly, I shall not be able to make a speech.
There is a 5 per cent. improvement overall in the take-up of places. Compared with two years ago, there is a 14 per cent. improvement in the take-up of secondary places, where the real problem arises because of the disparity of applications to vacancies in the sector.

Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted many statistics which may or may not be right. I am concerned about the retention of teachers. I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman came to my constituency and to the school that I visited recently. I cannot swear to it, but I would judge that most of the teachers there voted Labour at the general election, believing that there was a brand new sunrise on the horizon. Instead, they found that it was a sunset. They have been hugely disappointed, and they laughed when I talked about what the Government were doing in schools. They could not wait to get out of teaching. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to them why teaching is a good profession in which they should stay?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes. I invite them to send a delegation to meet me in my office—I shall be happy if the hon. Gentleman joins them. I shall then be able to tell them why it is worth being a teacher. I will be able to share with them what others are saying to us, which is why taking 450,000 youngsters from classes of more than 30 pupils is making things easier for the teaching profession. Eleven thousand schools are undergoing repairs and renewals. We are spending £1 billion on putting technology into schools. I refer to the computers that did not exist and the link to the internet that did not happen under the previous Government. These things are worth celebrating. These are successes that breed success.
Let us rejoice in what is working and let us be clear about what is not. Let us tackle the problems and have them solved. Let us not have rhetoric, backed up by letters read out in the Chamber, that demoralises the teaching profession rather than rejoicing in what is taking place. And yes, let us have discipline. This year, £174 million—which is a one-third increase—has been spent on ensuring that teachers and heads with disruptive children can get them out of the classroom and into support units where action can be taken, and do not dump them on the street to become drug addicts and drug pushers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the Secretary of State, I shall not say anything that will undermine the recruitment or the position of teachers. I want to ask a simple question as a London Member of Parliament who also chairs a school governing body. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many experienced teachers have difficulty coping with the level of bureaucracy? They perceive that it is increasing and that it takes more of their time, and it is a pressure that is driving some of them out of the profession or to think about leaving it. If the right hon. Gentleman does accept that, will he review seriously the frequency with which the Department for Education and Employment sends out circulars, issues paper and sends, either directly or through local education authorities, additional documents for teachers to consider? Surely we could reduce that to one or two occasions a year, so that for the rest of the year teachers and head teachers could concentrate on managing and teaching in their schools.

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I accept that there is a problem with bureaucracy, paperwork and administration. That is


why we have set up a panel of heads and teachers to monitor the commitment that we have made that, from this September, we will cut the number of documents issued by a third and the amount of paper by a half. We will send out material in batches, and we will use electronic communication when that is suitable for heads. We will take similar steps with other agencies, such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and Ofsted, and with local authorities, so that requests for information are not duplicated. Data collection can be simplified and we can lift unnecessary burdens from heads and teachers.
There is still a long way to go, but I take no lessons on this issue from the Conservatives. They made a complete backside—a complete mess—of the introduction of the national curriculum and the assessment tests, they introduced Ofsted, and they set up the system of data collection for the tables to which we are committed. Those four measures alone placed more administrative requirements on heads and teachers than any paperwork that I have introduced, trebled. The paperwork that I have required includes the literacy and numeracy framework, advice to teachers on the "terrible" forms they have to fill in to get a £2,000 uplift in their salary, and advice on safety that we sent out two years ago and which the Opposition consider a bureaucratic infringement. Some things have to be done; some things have to be sent; and some things are necessary for consultation. However, too much has been sent out; too much has been required; and too much has to be read by teachers and heads rather than appropriate extracts or information available on the web.
We will continue to take action to ensure that we lessen the burden. In the end, paying teachers well, increasing the number of teachers, creating buildings that are fit to teach in with equipment that is fit to use, ensuring smaller class sizes, ensuring that the money is available to pay teachers at an advanced level to retain as well as recruit them, ensuring that heads get backing through the new leadership centre, and the other measures that we have put in place will all make a difference.
We will work with the Teacher Training Agency and the General Teaching Council, and with heads and local authorities across the country, to ensure that vacancies are filled, and that children get teachers with the qualifications and experience to do the job. The problems cannot be resolved by glib answers in a debate. That can be done only by concrete action to recruit young and old alike, and to make it worth being in the teaching profession. We should sing about what is working and tell every young person we meet that the teaching profession is the best way of fulfilling themselves and of making the next generation fit to live in this country.

Mr. Phil Willis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on choosing to raise such an important subject on a Supply day. I think that the whole House would whole-heartedly agree that without a supply of well qualified, well motivated, committed and well paid teachers we cannot expect standards to rise, social exclusion to diminish, underachievement to be tackled or society to have confidence in the education product.
There is a teacher shortage—a teacher crisis—in our schools, despite the protestations to the contrary by the Secretary of State this evening and by Baroness

Blackstone in the other place last week. However, it is to the eternal credit of the teaching profession—and in particular, of the ingenuity of head teachers—that it has not made a drama out of a crisis.
The recent research by Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson of the university of Liverpool, entitled "Coping with Teacher Shortages" and "Talking Heads", gives us a graphic insight into the coping strategies of many schools. Those reports should be compulsory reading for all MPs, and certainly for the Secretary of State. The research helps to explain the paradox between what the Department for Education and Employment reports about teacher shortage and the actuality of what head teachers and governors find in their schools.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead read out a number of lines from the report "Talking Heads". They make amusing reading and make a cheap byline in such a debate, but they send out a stark warning that there is a limit to what can be done in our schools to paper over the real problems of teacher recruitment and retention.

Mrs. May: I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow he will regret his remark that those deeply felt comments from teachers about the problems that they face were just a cheap byline in a debate. Will he withdraw that remark?

Mr. Willis: I certainly will not. I never regret what I say in the House; I choose my words carefully. The comments made in the Smithers report "Talking Heads" were well made—they were from committed teachers and were not intended to be used to make cheap political jibes in the House. They highlighted a difficult problem, and those teachers expected the House to take the issues that they raised seriously.
It is sad that the hon. Lady has chosen to link the important issue of teacher shortages with the nonsense of the Tory proposals for free schools. That was the only solution she offered—that free schools would solve the problems. What the hon. Lady did not mention in her litany was that private schools have the freedom to charge fees. There is a great difference between what private schools can do and what the state sector can do. The policy of free schools has been thought up by those barmy 14-pints-a-day folk in Conservative central office, who care not one jot about the state sector. What we have seen tonight are crocodile tears.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
It is sad that not once did the hon. Lady acknowledge that the problem of teacher recruitment and retention began with previous Tory Governments. Between 1985 and 1990, every target set by the Tories for secondary recruitment was missed by a margin of 10 per cent. That is the reality of what was happening in the 1980s. Between 1993 and 1997, with the exception of 1991–94, the target for the recruitment of maths teachers was missed—by a staggering 21 per cent. in 1995–96 and an even more staggering 34 per cent. in 1996–97. The only time the previous Government met their targets for teacher recruitment was when Norman Lamont engineered the biggest economic depression since the war.


That is the reality. The only bonus of that policy was that at least teachers in London could afford to buy houses, because the housing market collapsed.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that at a recent union-arranged conference, he was criticised by the union chair for devoting the whole of his speech to an attack on the Conservative party, rather than making any constructive observations about what the Liberal party might come up with?

Mr. Willis: I seem to remember being cheered from the rafters at all the teachers conferences for the sensible, constructive and proactive stance that I took on those occasions.
Let us consider what happened during the Tory years. I make no apology for attacking the Tories for their policy, and for what happened during those years. It is small wonder that the number of teacher vacancies increased in each of the last three years of that Government, beginning a trend that has, sadly, continued ever since. No wonder the hon. Member for Maidenhead did not dwell too much on the past: the roots of the present crisis were firmly planted by her former colleagues.
When we examine Tory education policy before 1997, it is easy to see why teacher recruitment became a problem. Just look at the Tory record on pay during the previous Parliament. In debates such as this, it is important for us to remind the public of what happened in those Tory years before 1997. Only in 1992 and 1993 did the Tories fully fund the teachers' pay award as recommended by the review body. In 1992—a general election year—there was a recommendation for a 7.5 per cent. award, which, oddly enough, was paid in full. In 1993 there was a recommendation for a 1 per cent. award, plus restructuring. That too was paid in full, but for the remaining years of the previous Administration teachers had to put up with an award topped up by local education authorities making cuts elsewhere. In 1996 and 1997 they had to put up with the appalling arrangement of staged pay rises introduced by the last Government. That shows how much that Government valued teachers, and how much they wanted to encourage the profession.
It was not just lack of pay that put people off joining or staying in the teaching profession. It was the lack of promotion and career prospects; it was the ever increasing bureaucratic load imposed by the disastrous launch of the national curriculum—mentioned earlier by the Secretary of State—under the previous Secretary of State, John Patten; it was the intensive use of Ofsted, whose first round of inspections drove many teachers out of the profession because of the stress caused; and it was the changes in early retirement and pension arrangements, introduced by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), which caused a massive exodus from the profession before the September 1997 deadline.
Furthermore, there was a lack of investment in school buildings, equipment and books, a lack of investment in professional development, and continued blocking of the General Teaching Council. It is worth pointing out that when the GTC was launched in September, not one Tory

Front Bencher turned up at the launch. Indeed, not one Tory Member of Parliament turned up. It was left to the Minister for School Standards and me to represent the House.
The deliberate concentration of policy on grant-maintained schools and assisted places sent a clear message to would-be teachers that they would be joining a two-tier education system, consisting of a tier that the Government valued and a tier that they did not value. It is sad that a Labour Government who were so critical of the last Administration should adopt almost the same complacent attitude to teacher recruitment and retention.
In 1997, the Select Committee report "Teacher Recruitment: What can be done?" identified the problems that needed to be tackled. The Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—who made a fleeting appearance this evening, and who is now a Minister—made it clear where the blame lay. On 18 February 1998 she said:
The complacency shown by the previous Government about the problem of teacher supply is outrageous. They created a crisis in teacher recruitment.
She promised, however, that the Labour Government would sort that out:
The Tories may have caused the problem, but Labour must solve it.—[Official Report, 18 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 1021–22.]
The Government began solving it by imposing tuition fees on undergraduates.

Dr. Harris: And removing grants.

Mr. Willis: And removing grants. The net result was that BEd students had a minimum of £3,000 heaped on their shoulders, in addition to the average £10,000 debt that they incurred because of the removal of grants. I defy the Minister to explain how the introduction of tuition fees and the removal of benefits and grants could improve the supply of teachers.
The Government discouraged potential graduates from choosing a teaching career by introducing a culture of "name and shame", and a fear of failure. Imagine ICI or Arthur Andersen recruiting on that basis. They would be laughed out of court. This was also the Government who gave succour to Chris Woodhead when he launched his polemical attack on 15,000 failing teachers. He did not produce a shred of evidence, and not one Minister challenged his findings.
The Government have increasingly deprofessionalised teaching by telling teachers what to teach, when to teach and how to teach, and discouraging creativity in the classroom. They have created bureaucracy in schools with their target setting and central control, which send all the wrong messages to potential recruits. The net result has been an acceleration of the recruitment crisis in the past three years, and—equally significant—a dramatic increase in the desire to leave the profession.
I spent 34 years in the teaching profession. The Minister for School Standards spent 18 years in the profession. Such periods were not uncommon. According to an ICM poll this year, whose findings have been substantiated by various other polling organisations, half our teachers now want to leave within the next 10 years.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the average length of service is now only 15 years, and is dropping year after year. It is no surprise that the number of teachers leaving


the profession within five years has increased each year since 1994, and now stands at a staggering 5,000 a year. It is no surprise, either, that in the last two years the number of teachers leaving the profession, but not retiring, has increased by 30 per cent.: more than 3,000 have simply packed their bags and gone. Nor is it any surprise that, according to the September submission to the Department by the review body, schools now have 2,666 vacancies—the largest number since 1991, when there were 5,222.
Both The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association surveys showed, in September, that the real number of vacancies is much higher than that—some 4,000 in secondary schools alone. The Government's complacency, however, is as staggering as the Opposition's hypocrisy. Replying to my noble Friend the Baroness Sharp of Guildford, Lady Blackstone claimed that the crisis had been exaggerated. She should tell that to parents in Southwark, where today there is a 7 per cent. vacancy rate. In Tower Hamlets, 97 teachers are needed. In Hackney some schools do not even advertise posts, because they receive no response to their advertisements.
London is approaching meltdown in terms of teacher recruitment. Without the support of teachers from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, many London schools would have to close their doors, never mind working a four-day week. The problem is not confined to London, however. In Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, 186 vacancies are currently reported. That is a 100 per cent. increase on the number two years ago. Even in more affluent Buckingham and Milton Keynes, 59 teachers are urgently required.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke of 30,000 vacancies by 2004. That, of course, included the assumption that all 17,000 supply teachers would need to be replaced by permanent teachers—a somewhat exaggerated claim, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. However, she highlighted the admirable way in which many of our teachers manage their schools to overcome the lack of permanent staff. In January 1997, one in 25 teachers was either a temporary teacher or an instructor; today the figure is one in 20. The ingenuity of heads and their staff has enabled the Department to be as complacent as it is.
It would be wrong to say that the Government have done nothing. There has been a Green Paper on the future of the teaching profession, but a bungled threshold payment scheme has devalued what was essentially a sound proposal to reward service in the classroom.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The hon. Gentleman has never said that before.

Mr. Willis: I have always argued that teachers in the classroom should be paid more and that the career structure should keep teachers in the classroom. I am very pleased that the Government have listened to those cries.
Pay awards since 1998 have been met in full. There are promises to reduce bureaucracy, and we have heard the Secretary of State make them. I certainly would not accuse either him or his Ministers of not being sincere in their desire to recognise the worth of our teachers, but it will take much more than that to resolve the teacher

shortage. The Government took two years to respond to the decline in applications for teacher training with golden hellos for key shortage subjects.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me because so far, in a 16-minute contribution, he has said precisely nothing about the need for good order in schools. Given the rising tide of violence by pupils against teachers throughout the country, does he agree with the Conservative Opposition that new guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint are urgently needed and that they should be based on the common-sense instincts of the majority of the British people, not on the permissive prejudices of the liberal establishment?

Mr. Willis: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His interventions are always so interesting. However, he raises an important issue, and I shall treat it seriously. I do not share his jaundiced view of what happens in the vast majority of our schools. Of course, some students—I have met a few of them in my time—cause major problems for teaching staff and the rest of the school community, and of course it is right and proper that they should be treated properly. I am sure that the Minister recognises the folly of setting a target for the reduction of exclusions; it was nonsense. We must have a balanced programme, but the hon. Gentleman, with all his wisdom, does state schools no good by creating the impression that they are overrun with mindless thugs who do nothing but attack teachers, take drugs and burn down schools.

Mr. John Hayes: Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), does the hon. Gentleman agree that emotional and behavioural difficulties represent the fastest growing area of special needs in schools? Although one can parody the situation, he knows that that is certainly a major concern for many teachers, especially those in inner cities.

Mr. Willis: May I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking up his place on the Conservative Front Bench? May his be a long and happy experience in opposition.
The hon. Gentleman, who has a genuine interest in special needs, is absolutely right to say that dealing with special needs children who also exhibit behavioural problems is a major problem. The Minister will agree that it is a sad statistic that those with a statement of special needs are seven times more likely to be excluded than those who have not, and that Afro-Caribbean youngsters are four times more likely to be excluded from schools. Those problems must be treated seriously, but that will not happen if we simply give heads a blanket excuse to get rid of such kids from their schools. We must create the sorts of innovative teaching and support mechanisms that allow youngsters with special needs to develop as productive members of society, rather than excluding them and making them outcasts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with those comments.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I share many of the Secretary of State's sentiments about the teaching profession and the glory of being a teacher, but does my


hon. Friend agree that lifting the burden from teachers so that they can spend more time in the classroom with children who have serious behavioural problems—and a little less time filling in the forms that are part of the bureaucratic nightmare that now accompanies teaching jobs—will go a long way towards lifting the burden in cities such as Portsmouth, and towards getting teachers to return to the profession in such places? I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it is no good the Secretary of State saying that he will do that in future, because the teaching profession needs it to happen now.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would agree with him as well. In reality, there is not a jot between the three major political parties about the need to get rid of bureaucracy in schools and allow teachers to teach. We need to tackle the previous Government's legacy of bureaucracy, and as a party, we have made it absolutely clear how we would tackle it. We should accept that creating time for teachers to teach is also an issue, especially in primary schools. The sadness is that most primary school teachers are committed to a full-time teaching load five days a week. That makes it exceptionally difficult to spend time with disruptive children or those with special needs, and to do the work required to prepare the curriculum and the lessons.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: I should like to finish the point—and then we could stay until midnight.
The Liberal Democrats have asked the Secretary of State to ensure that all primary teachers timetables include the non-contact time to enable them to tackle some of those issues, and that each primary class has a classroom assistant. Those sensible proposals would do much to enable teachers to have more contact time with youngsters, bring teachers back into primary schools and give them the time to work with their pupils.

Mr. McWalter: rose—

Mr. Willis: I want to make progress, because I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I have mentioned that the Government took two years to recognise the crisis and introduce golden hellos, and three years to introduce training grants—a proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made in response to a Select Committee report about four years ago.

Dr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Willis: I have just said that I would not take an intervention; I should like to finish my speech.
It is important that we recognise that neither golden hellos nor the training grants have resolved the crisis, despite wildly optimistic claims. The DFEE rightly states that applications have increased, but the number of acceptances in the key shortage areas are down—

4 per cent. fewer for maths, 13 per cent. fewer for physics and no increase for chemistry. Those are crucial subjects in the curriculum. We should not simply refer to applications; we must consider those who were accepted.
Ad hoc policies do not tackle the shortages that exist elsewhere in the system. The primary sector crisis is especially acute in special needs, particularly in London, where one in 20 classes do not have a specialist teacher. That is unacceptable. Although Government policy has produced more trainees for science, there is a huge imbalance in favour of biologists. In 1997, the Select Committee urged the Government to operate a more comprehensive, transparent planning system for teacher supply. That simply has not happened. I hope that the Minister will commit herself to making that system possible. We have the same stop-go teacher recruitment policies that we had 10 or 15 years ago, and that is unacceptable. In the past it may have been possible simply to respond to economic cycles. Today it is not. We must recognise that education is in the marketplace for the best graduates. We must respond to that marketplace.
I urge the Government to look more imaginatively at solving teacher shortages and not to rely simply on importing skills from abroad. May we encourage universities to offer all undergraduates a teaching component in their degrees to encourage them to acquire and to use skills in schools and colleges? Let us rethink the package of incentives and create a £10,000 training salary for all postgraduate trainee teachers, with clear contractual safeguards. Let us encourage mature entrants into the profession with realistic financial support packages, so that they can make the transition from industry to the classroom.
Let us support teachers in deprived or high-cost areas such as London with a realistic package of housing and travel benefits, and can we recognise that we must have competitive staffing salaries if we are to attract teachers? Above all, let us make teaching the attractive career that I believe it is. The Minister and I spent many years in the teaching profession. It is a proud tradition, and it is at the root of our society. I trust that the Minister will give us assurances as to how we will meet our requirements for the future.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), not a near neighbour, but a neighbour of mine in Yorkshire. It is a pleasure to follow his speech because it ended with some constructive suggestions. As Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I am rather proud to look back at the early report that it published, not under my chairmanship, but under the Chairman before me, entitled, "Teacher Recruitment: What can be done?" It made some positive suggestions about a pathway for the future.
What is disappointing is that I was looking at the membership and it included the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Unfortunately—I have to say this; I do not want to be too partisan—I heard her make very few constructive suggestions about why we have a problem with teacher recruitment and what we should do about it. I hope to look at some of the deeper reasons for problems and the reasons why we have not gone far or fast enough, given that good October 1997 report.
I re-read that report. I then read the Government's response to it. All of us would admit that Select Committees, which I am proud of, make very good reports and that Governments do not always give a 100 per cent. positive response to them. In the case of that report, the Government did not, but, to be fair, a very high percentage of the report's suggestions were acted on. Although "could do better" would be my judgment on overall performance, there were some significant, positive responses to the report.
I was trying to think about the underlying reasons for our problems in teacher selection, recruitment and retention. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment mentioned retention, which is so important—retention at every level. Why do many more men drop out of teacher training courses? Why, after five years, are only—estimates vary—between 60 and 70 per cent. of teachers still in the profession? We must look at that carefully.
What I started with is the awfulness of the political debate. If we had a bunch of teachers watching the debate—many will be watching us on television—what view will they have of the useless hyperbole that is used? What good does it do? My old friend the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is guilty of it, too. Like the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about meltdown.
To be honest and fair about the present situation, there is a problem with teacher recruitment. It is not the worst that we have ever had. I have obtained figures from the House of Commons Library. Ten years ago, the position was more than twice as bad as it is today. I think that there was a 1.8 per cent. recruitment lag. The latest figures show that there is a 0.8 per cent. lag.
There was a significantly worse situation in 1989. Interestingly—we are all sensible people in the Chamber—that recruitment lag was also at a high point in the economic cycle. We all know that there is a high point in the economic cycle. We cannot walk past a shop without people advertising for people to work. Everywhere we look, there are advertisements in the newspapers. Graduate employment is a competitive market.
There are more and more jobs and more diverse careers than ever before. We have relied on women to be the backbone of our teaching force and have often taken them for granted. For many years until not that long ago, often, when a bright young woman was leaving school and going to university, the advice that she got was that there were only three careers for her to go into: nursing, teaching and becoming a secretary. Thank God—I have to admit that I have three daughters and a son—those days are in the past.
Only on Monday evening, I was talking to the head of a large girls school. She said that she had just come back from making a speech at another girls school, where she said, "You as women can do any job in the world that you are physically capable of and that you have the intellect for." A few years ago, people would have scoffed at the suggestion of a female astronaut, let alone females in every profession. Jobs are becoming more open and more challenging, and more attractive not only to young women graduating, but to men. There is a competitive marketplace.
I suppose that, if we are going to stay in the world of economic reality, one of the answers is that we must pay teachers competitive rates. I was digging out work by the 1953–55 royal commission on public service that considered the public sector and public sector pay. There was a serious attempt to work out what had to be paid in the public sector to attract and to retain talented people. It is about time that we as politicians and Governments looked more carefully at the realistic pay that we must give teachers to retain them. It must be seriously competitive. That is the reality.
Surely something could have come from the Opposition. They purport to be the experts on business, competitiveness and the real world of the private sector. Surely we should have heard some word about the reality of having to pay the price. In many areas, the Government have responded to that. I know that performance-related pay is controversial between the parties, but I believe that it is a significant change towards giving teachers the opportunity to increase their pay.

Dr. Harris: I always enjoy listening to the erudite hon. Gentleman who chairs the Select Committee on which I serve. What example does it set, for young women in particular looking for a career in teaching or academia, when the Government seem willing to tolerate a pay gap in academic salaries, which is surely unacceptable, year after year?

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with him and that I agree with the findings of the Bett report. We have to pay university teachers better and ensure that women get the same opportunities and pay as men. I will be campaigning shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.
I must talk about the hyperbole used during the debate. Some hon. Members have talked about a meltdown. That term applies to a nuclear disaster and is inappropriate language in this context. We have also heard from another Back Bencher about the rising tide of violence. That is also inappropriate. It is not what I find that teachers believe to be the reality in schools up and down the country. When politicians use such cheap hyperbole they do no justice to the education system that we are trying to promote.
I have been in the House for a long time and I listened attentively over 18 years in Opposition as the Conservative Ministers made strong statements about the problems of public education. I listened a great deal more attentively when I knew that those Ministers sent their children to public sector state schools and not to schools in the private sector. For too long, too many Conservative Members talked about the problems in the state sector when they had no intention of ever sending their child anywhere near a public sector state school.

Mr. Bercow: Of course one should not use hyperbole, but neither should one ignore the facts as they are presented. Is the hon. Gentleman denying that violent assaults on teachers by pupils—it is only a minority of pupils—are on the increase? In Southampton, to give just one example, the rate doubled between 1998 and 1999. What a disservice the hon. Gentleman does to his constituents and the country by denying what everybody else knows to be the case.

Mr. Sheerman: My point is that if we put things into perspective, we do more justice to the electorate. I wanted


to mention that one of the reasons for the problem in attracting teachers is providing them with a decent and safe environment in which to teach. That is important and in my previous speech during a debate such as this I mentioned the real problem of attracting men into teaching when spurious allegations about their relationship with pupils can destroy their lives. That is a real problem. The difference between the hon. Gentleman's approach and mine is the need to put matters into perspective.
We should not generalise and say that every school is a blackboard jungle—some of us recall the famous film—because that is not the case. There is a problem, which we should meet with sensible policies. We should ensure that the teaching environment is safe, modern, pleasant and secure so that teachers can get on with teaching.
There has been a great deal of talk about bureaucracy. The Select Committee report talks about bureaucracy and red tape. There is no doubt that the Government have not done as much as they should, as fast as they should. However, we should not hear about a "bureaucratic nightmare", which is what we heard from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I visit schools all the time and I know that there are problems, but it is not a nightmare. It is hyperbole that upsets serious debate.
It would not be me if I did not say that one of the problems is the inspection system. It is not that there is not a good inspection system, which I applaud and want to see continue, but the style of inspection upsets teachers. We must have a genuine effort from Her Majesty's inspectorate to be seen to be more co-operative and working in partnership with schools, to help schools to meet and maintain high standards. It does no one any good if the inspectorate is misperceived. I think that the inspector has some work to do on that, and I shall be making that point to him when he appears before our Committee a week from today.
Violence and intimidation in the classroom cannot be tolerated. However, we have to get the exclusion balance right. There is no point in excluding students who consequently go into crime and drugs and cause tremendous problems in our society. There has to be a balance. My own preference—I have been involved in the issue in my own local schools—is to have special units within or very close to the school, rather than to exclude people from the school campus.
Therefore, although I agree that the problems are real, there is a measured response that goes beyond a school saying, "You are excluded", and having no further responsibility for that excluded student. The more successful schools and local education authorities have a very good and measured response to the problem of exclusion. If we could all reach the best standards in dealing with exclusion, we would all be doing very well indeed.
It is very easy to jump on bandwagons. In the past two or three years, I have seen a bandwagon—involving not only the Opposition, but other people—that seeks always to criticise and bash local education authorities. However, when I go round schools, one of the things that teachers and heads say to me is, "We have a very good local education authority here, and we value its support."
There are rather more people with special educational needs in state schools—in ordinary schools, which most British pupils attend—than in the private sector. State schools also have problems with disruptive pupils. Those problems, however—like the overall task of school management—are dealt with far better and more easily at the local education authority level.
There are long-term problems in recruiting teachers, and hon. Members would be foolish to ignore or deny that fact. There is, however, sensible action that we can be taking to solve those problems. Indeed, many of the problems were dealt with in the Select Committee report that we published three years ago and would be willing to update if necessary. Much has been done, but more needs to be done. We would serve Britain's great teaching profession and Britain's pupils far better if we cut the hyperbole and worked together on common-sense solutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I say that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but that we are fast running out of time in this debate? Unless speeches are brief, very many hon. Members will be very disappointed.

Mr. Tim Collins: In the light of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly seek to confine my remarks to less than 10 minutes.
Given that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in a speech that was interesting overall, touched on both the importance of the teaching profession's historical reliance on women and the subject of teachers' pay, I should perhaps declare an interest. My wife is a teacher in a state secondary school, and has spent her entire teaching career in state schools.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must avoid hyperbole. Equally, however, we must not disguise the genuine problems that are being faced by people in the teaching profession. Various hon. Members have said that it is very easy to describe problems and not to talk about solutions. I should like to discuss just one very important solution, and say that politicians of all parties should recognise that they have a role in achieving that solution.
I fully accept that my party in government was guilty of this to some extent and on some occasions, but politicians of all parties have found it rather too easy, rather too often to treat the teaching profession as a political punch-bag, to attack teachers in general and to give the impression that it is entirely legitimate and appropriate in seeking to root out the minority of teachers who are failures somehow to characterise all teachers as failures. We ought instead to take a leaf out of their book. Almost any teacher would say that children—this applies to adults, too—will flower far more if they are given a bit of praise than if they are admonished, punished and disciplined for failure.
Perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House should give a little more praise to those who have the difficult and incredibly important task of teaching our children and recognise that we should take pride in teaching and the fact that so many people want to be involved in it. We should encourage teachers and make


them feel wanted. I acknowledge that the Government have taken a few initiatives in that respect, but I believe that they too have fallen into the political trap of criticising the teaching profession or giving the impression of doing so. If we sent a more balanced message from this place, we would find that some of the problems of teacher recruitment and retention would begin to resolve themselves. Taking into account factors such as salaries and paperwork, we must let teachers feel that they are valued, supported and appreciated for what they do.
I also want to say a word about supply teachers. The Secretary of State did say something about this topic. Of course supply teachers play an important role and we should not denigrate some schools reliance on them, but I was disturbed to read a report in The Guardian on 5 September that pupils in one inner-city secondary school have been taught by 13 different maths teachers in one year. Teachers would agree that that is deeply disturbing for the obvious reason that it takes four or five weeks at the start of a term for a teacher to build up any sort of meaningful relationship with all the pupils in his or her class. A supply teacher cannot do that in one or two days. Teachers often find that pupils will not respond, however effective the teaching may be, unless they feel that the teacher has some sense of who they are and their individual interests and problems. Supply teachers often try extremely hard, but it is far better, wherever possible, for teachers to be full-term and full-time. I see that the Minister agrees.
Another problem—again I accept that it did not start in 1997, although I genuinely believe that it has got worse since then—is the pressure on teachers in respect of paperwork, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned, and targets. I fully accept that targets did not start in May 1997, but they have expanded and become more onerous.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen an interesting and sobering report that appeared in The Guardian in July relating to what was described as the various games that teachers play in order to manipulate the statistics that are reported to LEAs or to the Department for Education and Employment. Let me say immediately that I am not seeking to fall into the trap of saying that teachers are devious, unreliable and try to fix things and that the inspectorate should come down on them like a ton of bricks. I am trying to make a rather different point. Let me quote one or two examples.
The Guardian reported on a class of 18 children who had three things in common: they were all studying "Macbeth" for GCSE English, they had all turned in essays for course work and not one of them had written a single word of that course work. It had all been done by the teacher, or in one case by the teacher and her husband. The teacher was quoted as saying:
I do it for two reasons. First, you give the kid a chance and second, you don't get beaten over the head.
Another example from the same article referred to the comments of an Ofsted inspector, who had been a teacher, in relation to SATs. He said that secondary heads usually knew which primary heads were fiddling because the children arrived and could not work to the level of their SATs results. He said that fiddling at key stage 2 was probably pretty widespread and that policing was very weak. He went on to talk about the same thing happening with GCSEs and further up the scale.
It is possible to interpret that as meaning that there is widespread fiddling, although I do not believe that that is happening. It is also possible to interpret it as meaning that we should crack down on teachers. I do not believe that that is the right answer either. Although I do not want the Minister to think I am claiming that we have an authoritarian Government, we are in danger of creating something analogous to what used to happen in the Soviet Union, where the standard joke was, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"; or what happens in quantum physics, when one is told firmly that the act of measuring something changes what you are measuring; or the fundamental mistake that the Americans made in Vietnam, which was to try to fight a war according to statistics—they believed for years that they were winning because they kept getting statistics in the Pentagon about the number of Vietcong they had killed, when the reality was very different.
Is it not at least possible that in trying to constrain the teaching profession to a range of statistics and tests for a noble reason—to try to lever up standards for every child in the country, which is an objective I share—we are lowering standards by depriving teachers of the freedom they need to teach?

Ms Estelle Morris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Normally, I would not intervene on a 10-minute speech. He is making a thoughtful speech and I particularly applaud him for the way he has tried to give a balanced view and to praise teachers. Can I confirm that he was not suggesting that widespread fiddling is going on at key stage 2 tests? I do not believe that he would want to give that impression, but I fear that when he comes to read Hansard he may find that he has.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a wide range of measures in place to ensure that tests are administered fairly? A group that looked at the quality of key stage 2 tests only last year—a group to which his own party made a nomination—said that, on the whole, tests are the standard that they have always been and are administered fairly. Not to stress that is to undermine teachers and pupils in the very way he has been seeking to avoid in his speech.

Mr. Collins: I will be happy to look back at what I said in Hansard. I quoted an Ofsted inspector who, in turn, was quoted in The Guardian as referring to widespread fiddling. I believe that I made it clear earlier—I am happy to confirm it again—that I do not believe that fiddling is widespread. However, I think that there is a genuine problem with the burdens placed on teachers. That is what I am asking the Minister to reflect on.
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that, at times, he contemplated following the example of a teacher and giving up to go to the Lake district. On behalf of the Lake district—part of which I am happy to represent—may I say that I hope he will not be seeking to bring his career to quite such a premature end? However, I issue an invitation to him or any other DFEE Minister to come to the Lake district and talk to some of the hard-working teachers in the excellent south Cumbrian secondary schools who would like to talk to a Minister about these points. I hope that it will be possible for Ministers to come soon to do that.

Mr. Phil Hope: I welcome the opportunity to debate the current problems of supply and recruitment of teachers. However, the speech from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) disappointed me enormously, as it seemed to be another excuse to lower the morale of teachers and make matters worse. It can take up to four years to train a qualified teacher, so many of the problems that we are experiencing now can be traced back directly to the failure of the previous Conservative Administration to provide the additional funding or to restructure initial training in the 1990s.
I have particular reason to speak in this debate as Corby community college in my constituency has had to establish a temporary four-day week as a result of the difficulties that it has recently experienced in recruiting permanent staff. I have met many parents in recent weeks and I share their deep concern about the impact of the four-day week on their children's education as well as the supervision of the children during study days at home. The school's head teacher and staff, along with the education authority and Corby's education action zone, neighbouring schools and, indeed, the Government are working hard together in this difficult period to provide a stable, well-balanced curriculum in the school and support for students who have to stay at home to study.
That fresh start school was created from the merger of two schools in Corby, both of which had falling standards and numbers as a result of Conservative underfunding and neglect in the 1990s. They were failing their children despite the best efforts of their staff. The decision to give those children a fresh start at a new school was therefore right, and we all look forward to the school moving to a new purpose-built site next September, for which it has received £3 million of Government expenditure. That launch will provide a real fresh start for the school.
In the past nine months, the local education authority and the school have worked vigorously to fill those posts with experienced, enthusiastic and committed teachers. Regrettably, however, the wider national shortage of teachers, which everyone in the Chamber acknowledges, has had a disproportionate impact on a school that, inevitably, is going through a difficult period. Right now, the school, the LEA, the education action zone and other schools are working together, with the support of the Government, to establish as quickly as possible a team of temporary teachers with the strength, quality and consistency to develop good relationships with the pupils.
I am pleased to say that the LEA has provided additional help through Northamptonshire's inclusion and pupil support service, and the inspectorate and advisory staff have worked with the staff and management of the school to develop and improve the curriculum. We all want the school to get back to normal as soon as possible, and if the interim measures are successful I hope that we can hit the target of 13 November or an even earlier date.
Of course, the key issue is recruiting permanent staff so that the school has a full complement of talented individuals committed to every child in it. I therefore hope that the new recruitment drive will be successful. The LEA has helped by seconding a personnel officer to work in the school, and additional recruitment and retention allowances for all staff are being discussed to ensure greater stability.
The recruitment campaign has already attracted 66 inquiries, and 22 applicants will be interviewed by the school in the next few days. The Government have helped by discussing with the Teacher Training Agency how the school can make the best use of the graduate training scheme. The Government, the LEA, the education action zone and the school are therefore working together to ensure that the permanent posts are filled by January.
That approach is in stark contrast to the divisive opportunism of the Conservative party. I am sad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead, the Opposition's education spokesperson, refused to apologise for the damage that she did when she parachuted into Corby on a campaigning trip. Corby people were not impressed by the hon. Lady's statements in the press that she was critical of giving Corby children a fresh start. She made no apology for the Tories' failure to recruit and train sufficient teachers when they were in office and called for the abolition of LEAs at the very time that the school was relying on the LEA for support, as I have described. She did not offer Corby a single constructive proposal to help the college in its present difficulties. Tonight's Opposition motion does not include a single constructive proposal, either.
Let us be clear: if the LEA had been abolished and the education action zone closed down as the Tories propose, Corby community college—which is doing its best, but is struggling—and every other school needing such support would have no one left to turn to. I am convinced that by working with others, and with Government support, the college will be a real success. We have come a long way in Corby in the three years since Labour came to office and, for the first time in many years, school standards are rising and young people are looking forward to new job prospects and future training. GCSE results are up, not falling as the Opposition said.
Lodge Park school in my constituency was not visited, but it is one of the most improved secondary schools in the country. Corby primary schools are showing rapid improvements in their SATs results. We are getting tremendous support, not just from the Government and the LEA but from local businesses, voluntary organisations and others, through the Corby-wide education action zone. That is worth £1 million a year in additional resources to deliver targeted projects and raise standards. Most important, it helps to create a different culture, in which schools work together and give each other mutual support.
That is an example of Labour delivering in Corby. Children and schools there are just beginning to emerge from the dark days of the previous Tory Government, when a few children benefited from extra resources but too many were left to struggle on in schools that were underfunded and left unsupported by an uncaring Conservative Government.
The Opposition's public services guarantee means that the Tories would have to cut 15,000 teachers and scrap the Government's class size policy. The 6,000 teachers who have been employed to reduce class sizes would go. As the debate this evening has shown, the Tories have no commitment to matching our spending on standards.
The Tories have said that they would abolish LEAs, so there would be no support, help or advice from that quarter for schools. They say that the free market should rule, but that would only create sink schools doomed to failure. In Corby, that would once more condemn children


to wasted lives and missed opportunities. We would lose out on the £3 million investment in the Corby community college, there would be no support for an education action zone, and even the sure start programme helping younger children would go.
I stand here tonight on behalf of parents and students at Corby community college and of every family in Corby to tell the Government what we have achieved so far and to ask for more. We want 100 per cent. more. We are going places in Corby and we are beginning to see the real potential of Corby's children, but we have a lot more to do. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past and let our children down again.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall gabble through my speech, as I hope that the next Labour Member called to speak will do the same and thereby give my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) a chance to contribute to the debate.
I wish to declare an interest—even though the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges does not seem to think that it is necessary to do so any longer. Two of my three daughters are primary school teachers, and of course I want them to enjoy the best possible conditions. My eldest daughter has been teaching for two years, and the other two both finished four-year courses at university this year, although one took a year out beforehand. One has been working on teacher training for all four years of her course and has never been able to receive any salary, while the other did a business degree sandwich course that involved a year out in industry, for which she was paid. Both have now taken their first jobs.
My youngest daughter has gone into a marketing job and, needless to say, her salary is 25 per cent. higher than that commanded by teachers. Teachers' pay must be looked at carefully. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, women now go into all sorts of jobs. We cannot expect them any more to be a cheap supply of employees for jobs such as teaching.
However, I want to be positive about what I say. It is important that more men should be encouraged to go into teaching, especially in primary schools, where there are not enough men to act as male role models. We must remember that many children belong to families in which there is no man to help care for them. That makes the goal of recruiting more male teachers doubly important.
Another matter that deserves careful consideration is how we can get more mature people to go into teaching. It is great that we can send people off on teacher-training courses lasting four years, but I am worried that the Government are encouraging people to do direct degrees, with an extra golden handshake to do a fourth year of teacher training. I fear that that might be divisive—that people going into teaching will do so by the least costly route and take advantage of the bonus in the fourth year. However, there is the danger that people who have spent three years on direct degrees will decide not to go into teaching after the fourth year. The policy might therefore turn out to have a negative effect.
In the primary sector in particular, mature men and women should be able to enter teaching or come back to it by taking shortened courses that give them a suitable qualification. There are many teaching assistants in

schools who are frustrated at being in very low-paid jobs and would like to progress with their training to become teachers. Why not ensure that some of the schemes that have already started are expanded to allow them to do that?
Despite the massive shortage of teachers, many local education authorities are giving teachers temporary contracts. It will not encourage people who are looking for their first job to persevere if they know that, when they find it, conditions will not be ideal. Why, when there is such a shortage of teachers, do many schools give teachers temporary contracts when they start?
On the shortage of teachers in the inner cities and the expense of living there, the Government already give a much higher standard spending assessment for inner-city areas, particularly those with social problems and certainly in the centre of London. Yet that money is not translated into vastly increased salaries for the people who work in those areas. Teachers get a couple of thousand pounds extra for working in the middle of London, and that is frankly inadequate. We must tackle that problem.
We hear talk about getting all schools on to the internet, but people seem to have forgotten that information technology in schools can be used to teach children, particularly mathematics. Some wonderful computer programs are available that might make the limited number of teachers in those specialities more productive. They could supervise more, and IT technicians could help to ensure that the programs are working properly.
A constituent of mine told me that she loved her first teaching job but arrived home in tears a number of times because of the pressure of all the paperwork, and so on. Information overload is an extremely important factor.
Teachers tell me that they have one set of paperwork that they work to and another set that they keep in a drawer for when, in three or four years, Ofsted will come round. When a school is to be Ofsteded, for six months prior to that inspection—or for however long the notice period is—it changes whole way in which it teaches to get through the inspection. That seems bonkers. We must encourage schools to run themselves in the same way they always do when Ofsted inspectors are present.
Of course violence is not rife in schools. Dorset has peaceful schools. However, head teachers tell me that they lose a great deal of money if they properly exclude a pupil from school, because there is an incentive to keep children in school. If schools go over the Government target, they lose money that would have been paid as a bonus for keeping in school children who should perhaps have been excluded.
Finally, it is quite extraordinary that, while the Secretary of State has been trying to get more funds into schools and to bypass LEAs, the Liberal Democrats, who have controlled Dorset for the past seven years, are not passing the funds on to the schools. Dorset gets one of the lowest SSAs in the area and has the worst reputation of almost any LEA for not passing the money down. After all, we cannot pay teachers more money and put more resources into schools unless the money gets there.
I have gabbled through my speech, as I said that I would, and I hope that Labour Members will do the same.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I am immensely proud of what the Government have achieved in all aspects of education. In many respects, it has been the Government's greatest success.
This is an important debate about the future of teachers and the teaching profession. In the light of that, I was rather disappointed by the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who said that standards in schools were falling. That is not the case. We should celebrate the work of teachers, because teachers are improving standards in schools, despite the many problems with recruitment. We should congratulate teachers on their work, often in difficult circumstances—for example, in meeting the needs of bright pupils and those with special needs and in implementing the Government's numeracy and literacy strategies. We depend on our teachers to make all those policies work.
We should recognise the outstanding work of our teachers. If we repeat that constantly in this place, we shall change the climate for recruitment to the teaching profession. We shall get away from one of the most awful statements—one that I am sure we have all heard: "I wouldn't recommend that you go into teaching." It is essential in debates such as this that we celebrate the work of our teachers.
It is also important that we should set out our vision of what should be happening in teaching. That is another reason why I found the hon. Lady's remarks disappointing. Yes, we should applaud the fact that pupils succeed in obtaining five GCSEs at A to C grades, but, every time the grades improve, we should not tell teachers that the exams must have been easier. That undermines teachers.
Furthermore, we should sing loudly the praises of those teachers who work day in and day out to ensure that kids from difficult backgrounds obtain even one or two GCSEs, or that, after hard work, grades go up from F to E. It is incumbent on all of us to celebrate the achievement of all pupils—whether in primary or secondary schools—at all levels and that we recognise the work put in by their teachers.
Similarly, some teachers do an amazing job dealing with behavioural problems. They work with young people in very difficult circumstances, reducing the number of exclusions and the rate of truancy. We need to ensure that we acknowledge that work, as well as recognising achievement at the top. By doing that, we shall also change the climate in which teachers work.
Teacher recruitment is a difficult issue. The Government realised that and implemented various initiatives to try to tackle it. Other initiatives and policies will help the teaching profession in the long run. I passionately believe that the new pay and performance structure for teachers will produce a better profession in the long term and will give teachers an improved career progression.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seems to have moved slightly in his position on that point, as we all have. The crucial aspect of performance pay is that, for the first time, we reward teachers for being good teachers and do not tell them that, in order to get promoted, they have to take on

management responsibilities outside the classroom. The Government have implemented that vital reform; it will make a great difference.
The reduction in class sizes will also make a real difference. Why are class sizes going down? Above all, it is because we are employing more teachers, but we are also employing more classroom assistants.
Poor behaviour has been mentioned. Yes, there are problems, but the Government have refused to turn their back on kids who are causing problems in schools. We will not just dump them; we will support them in learning support units in schools and in improved pupil referral units outside schools. I hope that Ministers will take on board the need to speak to those young people who are causing problems in schools about their experiences, to see what can be done to change the curriculum and the way that schools operate so as to help those youngsters to determine their future.
Finally, I fail to see how the Conservative policy advanced in some of the literature that is distributed— specifically, the idea of free schools, which will allow every school to set its own admissions policy, pay and conditions policy and discipline policy—will improve standards in school and raise teachers' morale. It is absolute nonsense. When teachers realise that the "set schools free" policy that the Conservatives are proposing will mean a return to selection and a smashing of the national pay and conditions for all teachers throughout the country, they will make a judgment on which policies they would prefer, especially when it comes to the next general election.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: My family has been exposed to both the independent and the maintained sector in our schools, in common with many of my constituents and in common with many colleagues in my party and throughout the country. That is why, while the Labour class warriors want to build barriers between the independent and state sectors, we want to build bridges and, because we want to build bridges, we have achieved in the past few years new ideas that will take our education system forward. That is why the teaching unions—the professionals—are paying a new attention to the thoughts of the Conservatives in education today.
I pay credit to the Secretary of State. I do not think that he is as much of a class warrior as he used to be. He has tried to endorse the Conservative reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. His problem is that he shows all the zeal of a convert and takes all our ideas far too far, to the extent that he drives teachers away from the classroom and away from their schools, because he tries to tell them what to do every living moment of the day.
The key point behind free schools is that we believe that the head teachers, not the politicians, should be in charge of their schools. Teachers, not political correctness, should rule in the classroom. In contrast, the Secretary of State appears to want to be the head teacher in every school in the country, and that top-down direction is driving away teachers in droves.
I am aware of the need for flexibility over pay, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation.
The role of free schools will mean that flexibility over pay will be at the school level. It takes a peculiar sort of genius for a Government to come up with a £2,000 offer


for teachers that teachers feel that they have to turn down because the terms and conditions are so convoluted, and so off-putting to the teaching profession. Many of them took the Government to court for the way that they are trying to implement their policy.
We have heard from the Minister for School Standards of a skills shortage in our economy causing a shortage of teachers. She has not mentioned in previous speeches—perhaps she will deal with it tonight—that the failure of her Government to follow the involvement of the private sector and further education colleges in putting more people through training is at the heart of the skills shortage throughout our economy today. The number of those passing through FE colleges in the past three years has now fallen a cumulative 500,000 short of the level that would have been achieved if she had maintained the productivity and output of the FE sector that she and her Government inherited from the Conservative Government in 1997. Because we have 500,000 fewer trained people in the economy, we now have more than 1 million vacancies.
Of course the teaching profession is suffering as potential teachers are drawn away by higher pay in the private sector, caused by that failure. In my constituency, that problem could not be more acute. Unless that shortage of teachers, and the high cost of living in places like Guildford, are addressed by the Government urgently, there will be an even more serious problem in some of the parts of the country that are the engine of the economy, in that it will be impossible to deliver the teaching that our country desperately needs.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been a short but good debate on a subject of real concern to head teachers, teachers and, increasingly, to parents, too. We have heard some excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a sincere and appropriate appreciation of teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made several valuable points about mature entrants to the profession and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) made important points about teachers in schools in his constituency. We also heard an interesting and thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), as well as contributions from the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Hope) and for Gedling (Mr. Coaker).
In his introduction, the Secretary of State followed in the footsteps of Baroness Blackstone by, once again, raising the question of whether there was a crisis at all. "Crisis? What crisis?" neatly sums up the Secretary of State's attitude. The most potent evidence of that is that the only cheep of opposition that we heard from the Liberal Democrats was that the Secretary of State had been complacent. Everything else was a paeon of praise from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We now know why the Liberal Democrats are so utterly feeble towards the Labour party; but if they describe the Government as complacent, that must be so.
It will not do for the Secretary of State somehow to suggest that the problem is localised in London. The problem takes its most severe form in London and we have heard stories of London authorities scouring the world for teachers. They have been searching for them in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, Dubai and

Namibia, to name but a few countries, and the London borough of Southwark is even reported to have sent recruiters to the Munich beer festival last month. That is not so much a golden as a liquid hello.
I have referred to the problems of the London authorities, but the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association discussed the matter in The Guardian. I hope that the Secretary of State will not take too much offence at the general secretary's words, because he used the word "crisis" and said:
The recruitment crisis is the worst we have seen. We are no longer talking about just London, but also Birmingham, Nottingham, Hull and Manchester.
According to the website of The Times Educational Supplement nearly three out of four heads said that recruitment was getting worse. For example, the head of the beacon school in Banstead, Surrey described the situation as "catastrophic". The Secretary of State suggested that Cumbria was one area in which there may not be problems, but he should listen to the words of John Wilson head of Wyndham school in Egremont, Cumbria, who said:
You don't recruit teachers now—you hunt them.
All the evidence is that the position is getting worse with supply teachers being used for long periods, teachers having to teach subjects other than their own and teachers coming from overseas. A recent survey by Liverpool university of 923 schools found that half had recruitment problems. It revealed geographers teaching business studies, biologists teaching chemistry and religious studies staff teaching maths. Mr. Speaker, you and I are both great believers in the power of prayer but, in maths examinations, a little mathematical knowledge comes in useful too.
The problems are set to get even worse in the future. The Government made much of the introduction of golden hellos, which were introduced in September 1999, and earlier this year of the introduction of the training bursary. Therefore, let us consider what has happened to the number of graduates accepting places in teacher training colleges in the past few years. In the last two years—this will interest the hon. Member for Corby, who suggested that the whole problem was the result of the previous Conservative Government—the number of graduates recruited for teaching in secondary schools was below the number recruited in 1997 and way below the target set by the Government for the number of teachers required. In the academic year just commenced, it appears that the total number recruited is slightly up on last year, but still below the Government's target and below the numbers being recruited by the previous Government at the end of their period in office.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) made the worst contribution to the debate—she got her facts all wrong. In 1994, the then Government were recruiting more maths teachers than their target required. Recruitment has slumped since then and this Government are way below their target. In this academic year, the number of maths and physics graduates has fallen again. The Government are also way below their target for technology graduates.
We understand that the Minister for School Standards will give us some good news about technology, so perhaps she will tell us whether the Government are meeting their target and whether the numbers recruited


are as high as they were in 1997. Last year, there was a 41 per cent. shortfall in the number of technology teachers recruited and a significant shortfall in the number of modern foreign language graduates recruited. You, Mr. Speaker, will be sad to learn that this year only one graduate has been recruited to teach Italian. It may be ciao for those who wish to learn Italian, but it is nil desperandum for others.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): That is Latin.

Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the Under-Secretary. She spotted that well. The reason why it is Latin is because two of the few subjects in which the Government are succeeding in recruiting sufficient teachers and are meeting their targets, and in which the numbers are increasing each year, are classical studies and history.

Mr. Hayes: Modernisation.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend beats me to it. It may not be what the Government have in mind when they talk about modernising the teaching profession, and we doubt very much whether it will feature in the list of the Prime Minister's achievements in his speech to the Labour party conference, not least because he seems to show every bit as much of a wish to abolish history as to abolish verbs in his speeches.
The Government's policies have failed. Instead of the Government attracting the high-quality graduates that our schools need, the additional pressures that they have created for teachers have deterred them.
The Secretary of State spoke of lower class sizes under the Government as being an incentive for people to enter the teaching profession and an achievement, but in secondary schools, where the crisis is at its worst and it is proving the most difficult to attract graduates into teaching, class sizes have risen every year under the Government until there are now 36 per cent.—90,000—more pupils in secondary schools in classes of more than 30 than there were in 1997.
We have heard from Conservative Members just how much the Government have undermined the authority of teachers by preventing them from excluding children when it is necessary to do so. When my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the case of the lady head teacher in Wales, the Secretary of State intervened to say that that was a matter relating to Wales and could not be commented on. However, that did not prevent the Minister for School Standards from commenting on it because she said that she was pleased for Mrs. Evans, and that it was a sensible decision. She was able to comment on that and our comment is that the Government have put far too many teachers' heads on the block and have undermined discipline and authority in schools.
The worst feature of all this is the ever-increasing burden of bureaucracy placed upon teachers by the Government. We hope that at long last the Government will take some positive steps to reduce that burden, other than by using their pathetic tool-cutting kit.

However, we do not hold our breath because, since the beginning of this year alone, when the Government announced their intention to reduce bureaucracy, they have issued 142 new circulars to be read by teachers and heads.
The Prime Minister's proudest boast is that this year we have seen the best ever primary school test results. We applaud the success and achievement of pupils and teachers. However, both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister failed to mention that those tests have shown an improvement each year since they were published under the previous Government. The Secretary of State will recall that he opposed the publication of those results. When the first set of results was published in 1995, showing a higher increase than for the present year, I think that the Secretary of State called it a searing indictment of the Tory Government—so much for the realism of his comments. Now it is an achievement under this Government. Likewise, the number of pupils obtaining five good GCSEs has increased every year since that examination began in 1988.
Yet today we have touched upon the greatest single threat to standards in our schools. The hopes of present and future generations are surely put at risk by the prospect of there simply being not enough teachers to teach them. Parents who find their children being taught by a succession of supply teachers—I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who quoted one case of 13 supply teachers—or parents who find their children being taught by someone who is not trained to teach the subject in question, or worst of all, as in Corby and Slough, who find their children being sent home because there is no one at all to teach them, are entitled to feel angry.
Those consequences flow inevitably from the Government's complacent attitude. We have heard no constructive response from the Government after the failure of their policies. All we have heard, as ever with this Government, is spin and propaganda. The anger of parents, teachers and heads will be all the greater when they confront the miserable consequences of the Government's failure to provide enough teachers in the future. When that happens, the Government's soundbite, "Education, education, education", will sound more than just a little hollow.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election to the Chair? I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his appointment to the Front Bench. He made an intervention on his first appearance on the Front Bench, and I hope that he stays there for a long time.
This has been an important debate. With the exception of the opening and closing speeches from the Opposition, most of the Opposition speeches were sensitive and made a genuine contribution to a crucial issue. I acknowledge the sensitivity of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who has real feeling for the schools in his constituency and made a thoughtful contribution. Without wishing to sound patronising, may I say that the speech of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) was one of the best that I have heard him make? Again, it was thoughtful, and I particularly applaud his idea for coping with the shortage of maths teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has been a valiant advocate of schools in his area and has some personal responsibility for the success of the education action zone. In return for what he has done for the school that is in difficulty in his constituency, of course I pledge all the support that we can give and all the support that that school will need until it is back on track and all the children are back in full-time education.
There is widespread agreement that without good teachers, standards will not improve. Good teachers are the key. We have many excellent teachers, and many of them achieve against the odds. Their performance over recent years has been the best of any generation of teachers that have gone before them. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the quality of education has gone down. The quality of teaching has gone up, and that is reflected in improved examination results.
Yes, teaching is demanding. We ask more of our teachers than we ever asked of any previous generation of teachers. We must do that because education is more important now than in any previous generation. Teachers meet that demand. They are the generation of teachers who have produced the most literate and numerate group of 11-year-olds, who have got the best GCSE and A-level results, and who teach the broadest curriculum.
Yes, we need more teachers, and yes, there is a problem. Nobody seeks to hide from that. We do need more teachers. Strangely enough, we need more teachers at the very time that we have more teachers in post than we have had for a decade. We have 10,000 more teachers in post than we had two years ago.
We need more teachers because times are changing and expectations are changing. We need more because we want class sizes to be smaller. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has had 123 extra teachers over the past three years to meet the primary school pledge in the local education authority where his constituency lies. We need more teachers because more parents want early years education and because more pupils are staying on at school.
The task has always been tough. It has never been easy to get as many teachers as we want into the school system. Compare what we have to do in our sector with what the private sector and other public sector employers have to do. We must attract 19,000 or 20,000 graduates each year into teaching if we are to meet the targets. PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the biggest of the private sector graduate recruiters, needs 1,300 graduates, KPMG needs 600, BT needs 500 and IBM needs 400. That is the enormity of the task. To reach the target for maths trainees next year, we must recruit 70 per cent. of those who leave university with a maths degree. That shows the difficulty that we face. No hon. Member should come to the House and pretend that glib statements about cutting paperwork will solve the problem. There is a long way to go, and we have made a start.
Conservative Members speak as though they discovered only recently that there was a crisis—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no crisis."] Conservative Members believed that there was a crisis and that they had discovered it. If there was a crisis, it happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us consider the figures. In 1989, vacancies were 1.5 per cent.; the figure is now half that. A decade ago, vacancies in London were 3.7 per

cent.; the figure is now less than half that. Fewer than 22,000 people were recruited for initial teacher training in 1989; the current figure is higher than 28,000. In 1989, 450 pupils on any one day were sent home from schools in Tower Hamlets because there were not enough teachers to staff the classrooms.
The key point is not whether we have always found it difficult to recruit teachers, but what successive Governments have done about it. The dividing line is there. The Conservative party did nothing during the long years of difficulty in recruiting teachers. They relied on waiting for an economic bust. Boom and bust in the economic cycle meant bust and boom in teacher recruitment. They mirrored each other. The Conservative party's best performance on recruitment was in 1992, when the economy was in deep decline. That cannot be right; it is a one-club approach to teacher recruitment. It involves no incentives, no investment, no extra money for training and no valuing of those who teach shortage subjects. Conservative Members displayed no anxiety about red tape and bureaucracy then. Their policy was, "Hang on a minute, just wait, we're a Tory Government and there's bound to be economic decline around the corner. Recruitment will then increase."

Mr. Tim Boswell: As one who was there, I wonder whether the Minister is suffering from selective amnesia. Twice she has said that the Conservative Government took no action to deal with teacher shortages. Does not she recall the scarce-subject bursaries, which, to some extent, were material in solving the problems in the specific subjects for which they were tailored? Has she forgotten them?

Ms Morris: I remember them, but they were not material in solving the problems. Where are they now? I tried to find out about the bursaries. [Interruption.] I tell hon. Members, they were not available for students who went into initial teacher training in 1997; like every other scheme, they faded with the previous Government's cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is holding a conversation. She should not do that.

Ms Morris: If that is the only suggestion that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) can make about the way in which the previous Government dealt with the teacher crisis—as it was in their day—it is no wonder that we inherited a teacher recruitment problem, just as we inherited other problems such as crumbling schools, and literacy and numeracy levels. Just as we have acted on literacy and numeracy and standards have improved; just as we have acted on crumbling schools, which are being repaired, so we have acted on teacher recruitment.
Over three years, almost £200 million has been invested in teacher recruitment. There were no golden hellos under the previous Government, and there was no training salary. Tonight's debate has shown that there would be no training salary if the Tories ever returned to government. The Conservative Government provided no incentive for returners to the profession, no well-funded employment route into teaching, and no training for those who wanted to teach but did not have the subject qualification. They had a one-club approach: wait for the recession and teacher recruitment will improve. Teaching



is more important than that. It is one of the most vital professions in the country. We cannot expect recruitment in teaching to improve only when the economic cycle is in decline.
The measures that we have put in place over the past three years are beginning to bear fruit. Since 1998, applications to secondary postgraduate courses have increased by 14 per cent. That is more than 2,500 extra graduates. There are an extra 500 for maths and an extra 850 for science. Since the beginning of training salaries at the start of April, applications for maths and science have increased. Applications for technology have increased by 23 per cent. and those for modern foreign languages by 20 per cent. Applications for secondary places, where traditionally there has been difficulty in recruitment, have increased by 45 per cent. compared with the same period last year.
For the first time, the Government have broken the link between recruitment and the economic cycle. We are the first Government who have managed to recruit more people, to have increased applications, to have increased acceptances and to have increased staff in the shortage subjects without attaching these achievements to an economic slump. That is the key point, and it is the great achievement of the past three years.

Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: I will, if the intervention is very short.

Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Lady's case is that the problems were all at the end of the previous Government's term of office and that her policies have turned things round. Was graduate recruitment to secondary education higher or lower in 1997 than it is now?

Ms Morris: In 1989, it was low. In 1992–93 it increased. There was then a gradual decline. The hon. Gentleman has picked 1997, but recruitment was in decline from 1993 onwards. There was then economic recession and high teacher recruitment. Never once after 1997 did teacher recruitment increase. The first time that it increased after 1997 was last year, after the Government had taken a range of measures to improve teacher recruitment.
I agree with many Members that the issue is not only about money going into teacher recruitment. It is also about money for teacher retention and about all the other things that make the job worth doing. It is about making sure that teachers have places where children who do not behave and ruin other children's life chances of learning can be sent so as to free them to get on with teaching the rest of the school. It is about smaller classes. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), it is also about classroom assistants, which all primary schools have. Twenty thousand new classroom assistants are going into classes to help teachers and to make life easier for them. It is about the extra money that has gone to small schools so that they can employ staff to help them with their administration. It is also about creating an environment where teachers want to stay when they have completed their training and get into the classroom.
It is not only the Government who have responsibility for recruiting and ensuring that people stay in teaching. Every Member has a responsibility, as has every teacher who makes a recommendation to his or her sixth forms as to what to do thereafter. Every parent who talks to his or her child about worthwhile jobs in society also has a responsibility. My disappointment is that yet again, when the Tories have had a chance to bring the debate on education to the Floor of the Chamber, they have chosen to carp. Over the past three years they have used every chance available to them to knock the literacy strategy, to knock the numeracy strategy, to get rid of excellence in cities and to get rid of education action zones. Today, joining on all that, they wish to get rid of training salaries. It is about time that the hon. Member for Maidenhead took on her responsibility to support the profession and used her time in the House to talk about the achievements of teachers. She should take every opportunity to celebrate their success. It is an honourable profession, and one of the best. It is more exciting to go into the teaching profession today than it has ever been. We should all appeal to young and not-so-young people to join the 400,000 teachers in schools today who do an excellent job and who, over the years, will be joined by many more who will work with them to raise standards for students.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 353.

Division No. 313]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Flight, Howard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Bercow, John
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gibb, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gray, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butterfill, John
Hammond, Philip


Cash, William
Hayes, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heald, Oliver



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Key, Robert



Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lansley, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Evans, Nigel
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Faber, David
Lidington, David






Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Loughton, Tim
Spring, Richard


McCrea, Rev William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, William


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Townend, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Viggers, Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Walter, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Paterson, Owen
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prior, David
Wilkinson, John


Randall, John
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Yeo, Tim


St Aubyn, Nick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Peter Luff and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Browne, Desmond


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alexander, Douglas
Buck, Ms Karen


Allan, Richard
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Burnett, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashton, Joe



Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Baker, Norman
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ballard, Jackie
Caplin, Ivor


Banks, Tony
Caton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Cawsey, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chidgey, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clelland, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Coaker, Vernon


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Colman, Tony


Borrow, David
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Jean


Brake, Tom
Cotter, Brian


Breed, Colin
Cox, Tom


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cranston, Ross





Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jamieson, David


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Edwards, Huw
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Efford, Clive
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fearn, Ronnie
Keetch, Paul


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna



Flint, Caroline
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Follett, Barbara
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lammy, David


Gapes, Mike
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gardiner, Barry
Laxton, Bob


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lepper, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Leslie, Christopher


Gerrard, Neil
Levitt, Tom


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gidley, Sandra
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Godman, Dr Norman A
Linton, Martin


Goggins, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lock, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Love, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McAvoy, Thomas


Grogan, John
McCabe, Steve


Hain, Peter
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Macdonald, Calum


Hancock, Mike
McDonnell, John


Hanson, David
McFall, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McIsaac, Shona


Harris, Dr Evan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harvey, Nick
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNamara, Kevin


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hepburn, Stephen
McWalter, Tony


Heppell, John
McWilliam, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hope, Phil
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hopkins, Kelvin
Martlew, Eric






Maxton, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moffatt, Laura
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Moore, Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Öpik, Lembit
Tipping, Paddy


Organ, Mrs Diana
Todd, Mark


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Palmer, Dr Nick
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tynan, Bill


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, ms Joan


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Ward, Ms Claire


Primarolo. Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Webb, Steve


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed. Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rowlands, Ted
Willis, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Wills, Michael


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woodward, Shaun


Sanders, Adrian
Woolas, Phil


Sarwar, Mohammad
Worthington, Tony


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and



Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 176.

Division No. 314]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Alexander, Douglas
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Dismore, Andrew


Banks, Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Drew, David



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bermingham, Gerald
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Follett, Barbara


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Bradshaw, Ben
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell. Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Hope, Phil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)






Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David

Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Salter, Martin


Linton, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mactaggart, Fiona
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mc Walter, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Miller, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Mitchell, Austin
Tipping, Paddy


Moffatt, Laura
Todd, Mark



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Touhig, Don


Moran, Ms Margaret
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Hatton)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mudie, George
Tynan, Bill


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan





Ward, Ms Claire
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Woodward, Shaun


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Wills, Michael
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


Winnick, David



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gidley, Sandra


Allan, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Baker, Norman
Greenway, John


Baldry, Tony
Grieve, Dominic


Ballard, Jackie
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beggs, Roy
Hague, Rt Hon William


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip



Beresford, Sir Paul
Hancock, Mike


Blunt, Crispin
Harris, Dr Evan


Boswell, Tim
Harvey, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hayes, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heald, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brake, Tom
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Breed, Colin
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hunter, Andrew


Burnett, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Jenkin, Bernard



Keetch, Paul



Cash, William
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)




King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chidgey, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Chope, Christopher
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Collins, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Leigh, Edward


Cotter, Brian
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lidington, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Day, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McCrea, Rev William


Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fearn, Ronnie
Maples, John


Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fox, Dr Liam
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gale, Roger
Moore, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick






Norman, Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Öpik, Lembit
Thompson, William


Ottaway, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Tyler, Paul


Pickles, Eric
Tyrie, Andrew


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Walter, Robert


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Webb, Steve


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whittingdale, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Sanders, Adrian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard
Willetts, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wilshire, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Syms, Robert
and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the successful new measures introduced by the Government to support teacher recruitment, including training salaries, incentives for shortage subjects and an expanded graduate teacher programme; welcomes the fact that there has been a significant increase in applications and acceptances for teacher training as a result; further welcomes the support given by the School Teachers Review Body for the Government's plans to better reward good teaching; notes that there are nearly 7,000 more teachers in post now than in 1998; further notes that primary and infant class sizes have fallen after rising annually under the previous administration; recognises that headteachers have got both the resources and the powers to deal effectively with discipline for the first time; and commends the work of the Government in addressing specific recruitment difficulties in London and the positive and pro-active approach of this administration towards recruiting and rewarding teachers more generally.

Flags

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
That the draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, which were laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
Last week in Northern Ireland saw the introduction of the first Budget presented by a local—as it happens, a nationalist—Minister at any time in the past 30 years. This week has seen a further historic development in Northern Ireland. For the first time, a common "Programme for Government" has been issued, providing a united vision of the future—of a stable, prosperous and descent society—and concrete Government actions to help achieve that, the like of which has not been seen in Northern Ireland before.
The "Programme for Government", presented jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is unique not only because of its far-reaching implications for every citizen in Northern Ireland, whatever their tradition, but because it enjoys the combined support of every Minister representing every party in the Executive—Unionist, nationalist and republican, pro and anti-agreement.
I suggest that the whole House will wish to applaud that signal achievement by the Executive. It shows that the Good Friday agreement is working; that inclusive government is working; and that politics in Northern Ireland is working. Every week for which politics works, violence is left further behind. We are seeing the shadow of the gunman which has been cast over Northern Ireland for decades now at long last fading away. It is partly because I want that progress to be maintained that I am introducing the regulations today.
We have to put old sores and provocations behind us. We cannot be constantly distracted from the proper business of government. We must find ways of resolving difficult issues in a sensitive and a balanced way. One such issue is that of flying the Union flag in Northern Ireland. The reason why that is troubling in Northern Ireland and not in Scotland or Wales, for example, is obvious. Northern Ireland is uniquely torn between two rival aspirations—to remain part of the United Kingdom, and to become part of Ireland.

Mr. William Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I shall continue if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, and make a little more progress.
I readily acknowledge the legitimacy of both those aspirations in Northern Ireland. The whole point of the Good Friday agreement is that Unionists and nationalists can participate together in government in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland while remaining every inch a Unionist, a nationalist or, indeed, a republican, as they wish, as long as they do so embracing peaceful and democratic means. This is the foundation of the new political dispensation that is being created in Northern Ireland.
Central to that dispensation is the principle of consent. The will of the people in Northern Ireland will govern its constitutional status—not guns or bullying or intimidation, but the will of the people, freely expressed.
That is why the participants in the Good Friday agreement explicitly accept that
the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland…is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish.
The meaning of that is unambiguous. It is that while there are—legitimately—two traditions, two national aspirations and two cultural identities in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, and where a national flag is flown, it therefore follows that that flag should be the flag of the United Kingdom.
It follows that the principle of consent which governs this process should receive more than lip service in Northern Ireland, as, too, must another cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement—the principle of equality: there must be just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both traditions.
There can be no second-class citizens in Northern Ireland, and there will not be. That is why we are doing what we are doing, reflecting parity of esteem between the traditions across the board in relation to the range of Government activity, the policing reforms, the criminal justice reforms and every other aspect of society in which identity becomes important. It is why, too, the regulations that I am introducing tonight have been drawn up in a sensitive way, and why, since May, I have consulted all the parties and offered every opportunity to the Executive and then to the Assembly to reach a consensus of their own on flag flying that would remove the need for me to make any regulations at all.
The Executive could not reach agreement—nor could the multi-party Assembly ad hoc committee which produced a report that was debated by the Assembly on 17 October. For this reason—and I regret it—it is not possible to draw up regulations which all the parties would welcome. However, the door remains open. If, in the coming weeks and months, the Executive is able to agree a way forward, I will happily revoke the regulations, with the approval of Parliament, to make way for a solution which enjoys the support of all parties. However, my firm judgment is that, in the absence of such a decision, to leave to individual Ministers the decision about when and how the Union flag will be flown, in some cases ignoring past custom, with practice differing from building to building, would be singularly unwise. That was the situation when devolution began and it simply brought needless and undesirable political strife, dividing the Executive and the parties at a time and in circumstances where their unity on other more important issues is very much needed.
That is why I am taking the initiative tonight, but I stress that it is a balanced one. The regulations are sensitive to the needs of each tradition and they are grounded in the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
The Union flag is not a party political or sectional symbol, representing one side of the community only. It may have become a political football for some who want to play politics, but for the overwhelming mass of people in Northern Ireland, it is not such a party political or sectional symbol. It will continue to fly over designated Government buildings in Northern Ireland on the same

basis as it does throughout the United Kingdom, without extra days tacked on for Northern Ireland as happened previously.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is my right hon. Friend's view of the perception that the issue of the display of flags ought to be subject to periodic review—the argument of the Social Democratic and Labour party?

Mr. Mandelson: I have said that if the Executive and the Assembly can find agreement and come forward with their own solution to the issue, I will happily bow to that agreement and accept that solution. In those circumstances, I would happily revoke the regulations and invite the House to approve that. However, if I were to introduce what might be known as a sunset clause for the regulations—to have them operate for a year and then disappear, allowing the debate to be opened up and the argument to begin all over again—I would not be doing a service to the Executive and the progress of devolution in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Secretary of State has said that he is seeking to avoid ambiguity. Is he confirming that the flag will be flown on all those buildings where previously it was flown on specified days prior to devolution? If so, could he explain why there are seven specified headquarters buildings and no reference to the Stormont Parliament buildings, where the flag was traditionally flown prior to devolution?

Mr. Mandelson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would like to go through each of the regulations in turn. As I do so, it will become clear what I am proposing tonight for the House to approve. I will take up that issue as I go through them.
It is important for the House to note that I am not ordering any particular Minister of any particular party to raise the Union flag on any personal or particular flagpole. The designation does not reach to that sort of detail or specification. It applies to Government buildings—that is an important point—that contain, in the majority, civil servants working for the Government.
Regulation 2 requires that the Union flag is flown at the seven principal Government buildings listed in part I of the schedule on the days listed in part II of the schedule. The Union flag must also be flown on the specified days at any other Government building not listed in the schedule—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs)—where it was the practice to fly it on the specified days in the 12 months preceding 30 November 1999. That is a permissive regulation: it is not obligatory. I stress that it applies to Government buildings where it was the practice to fly the flag in that period that I have described.
The regulations do not apply to Parliament buildings, which was the other point raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim. The Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 gives me power to make regulations only for Government buildings. Such buildings are defined in that order, which was made last May, as those buildings in Northern Ireland wholly or mainly occupied by the Northern Ireland civil service. I therefore do not have power to make regulations covering Parliament buildings.
In addition, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me, as Secretary of State, to regulate the manner in which flags should be flown over the seat of the devolved Administration. Hitherto, there has been no complaint about the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Assembly authorities. Consequently, and quite rightly, it will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide what arrangements are to be made for its own building. I hope that the House will agree that that is an appropriate course for me to have taken.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether equivalent buildings in other parts of the United Kingdom fly the flag on the same days as those listed in the order?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, there is consistency between the days designated for Northern Ireland and those designated for the rest of the United Kingdom. Those days are designated by the royal prerogative and promulgated through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Extra days used to apply to Northern Ireland that did not apply to the UK, such as new year's day, Easter Sunday, and 12 July. Those extra Northern Ireland days have been deleted from the designation, in order to create consistency between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Removing 12 July from the list seemed to be the sensitive course of action.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Secretary of State touch on those other areas where it is possible that differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK might arise? In the rest of Great Britain, there will occasions on which the royal prerogative will be exercised to order that flags be flown at half mast, such as on the death of a foreign head of state. However, the regulations contain no such provision—nor any provision to cover special occasions that might fall outside what the order prescribes. How will the regulations deal with such matters—or will special regulations have to be made for any special events such as those I have set out?

Mr. Mandelson: I suppose that there must have been an occasion in the past when our national flag was lowered to honour the sovereign of another country. It would be open to me to introduce such a variation, but I think that people in Northern Ireland would expect the practice followed in other parts of the United Kingdom to be honoured in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the regulations will allow people to relax a little about the subject of flag flying, and take the unexpected developments that have been described more in their stride. Every hoisting of the Union flag would not then be a major constitutional issue about which people feel that they must take to the proverbial barricades to fight their respective positions.

Mr. John Gummer: Will the Secretary of State say who decides whether the Union flag is flown over this House? Would that decision be comparable to the decision in Stormont?

Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that hon. Members make that decision. If we do not, I am sure that Mr. Speaker is

able to exercise his discretion on the matter. Failing that, I am sure that there is a Father of the House somewhere waiting to reintroduce his discretion in this matter, as in all others.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State may be unduly optimistic about taking all the heat out of the flags issue in Northern Ireland, but I hope that he is right. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Government buildings used by the Northern Ireland civil service. Can he confirm that the regulations have no effect on buildings used by the armed forces in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mandelson: No, they have no effect on them whatever. Those are British bases and camps providing facilities for the British Army, and over those bases it is appropriate that the British flag should fly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has set out clearly how, on the 17 days in the year that the regulations specify, there is a requirement to fly the Union flag. Departments are under the control and authority of Ministers. What happens if a Minister instructs his officials not to fly the flag?

Mr. Mandelson: I hope very much that it would not even occur to a Minister in the devolved Administration to ask any civil servant to ignore Parliament's wishes or to disobey the law. I am not asking individual Ministers to take any decision or action in relation to the flying of the flag over buildings which they might occupy, along with other Ministers and other Departments in the same Administration. Just as I am not asking them to take any initiative or do anything, I hope that they, in turn, will not take any initiative or action to discourage others from complying with the law. Of course, in the unhappy eventuality of the matter needing to be tested in and enforced by the courts, that will have to be done.
Regulation 3 allows the Union flag to be flown at a Government building during a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty the Queen. Regulation 4 requires that the royal standard is flown at a Government building during a visit by Her Majesty the Queen. As is the requirement in the rest of the United Kingdom, the royal standard is to be flown only while Her Majesty is in the building and must be flown in a superior position to the Union flag if it is also flown during the visit.
Regulation 6 requires that the Union flag is flown at half mast at the specified Government buildings following the death of a member of the royal family, or of a serving or former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Regulation 7 provides that, where the Union flag is required or permitted to be flown on the specified buildings on the specified days, it may also be flown at any other Government buildings on the same day and in the same manner.
Regulation 8 allows the European flag—I hope that this is not too provocative—to be flown alongside the Union flag on Europe day, at a Government building not specified in part 1 of the schedule. I am not seeking to be divisive or destabilising by making this suggestion. The regulation also allows the national flag of a visiting head of state to be flown alongside the Union flag on the occasion of a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty, at a Government building other than that or those being visited.
Regulation 9 prohibits the flying of flags at Government buildings other than as provided for by the regulations. The Union flag will not, therefore, be flaunted unnecessarily.
Some nationalists have argued that the Good Friday agreement requires either the use of both the British and Irish flags or no flags at all. They argue that if they cannot have them both, they should have neither. I respect that view, but I really cannot accept it. It is worth recalling what the agreement says about the use of symbols for public purposes. All the participants acknowledged its sensitivity
and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner that promotes mutual respect rather than division.
That means not that there should be no symbols—that is not what the Good Friday agreement says or is about—but that their use should be managed with sensitivity and respect for both sides of the community.
Had I brought forward regulations today that required the flying of the Union flag at all times come what may, or on significantly more occasions than one finds in other parts of the United Kingdom, or if I was suggesting that it should be flown in the heart of strongly nationalist areas, I should indeed have been guilty of insensitivity to the minority tradition.
But I am not doing so, and I have to say, as I have said before—the point is worth repeating in the House—that there is no point, while addressing nationalist concerns, as we are quite rightly doing, in simply replacing an alienated nationalist tradition with an alienated Unionist one. Unionists' identity and their sense of Britishness needs to be respected in Northern Ireland as much as nationalists' identity. It is in order to achieve that that I am, among other things, bringing forward these regulations.
In conclusion, I believe that what Unionists want, and what these regulations achieve, is that the national flag should be flown over Government buildings in the same respectful, common-or-garden, low-key way as it is flown in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is the sensible approach and I welcome the mature recognition by the Ulster Unionist party, in its submission to the Assembly's ad hoc committee, that there is no need or desire to flaunt the Union flag as such.
What I am doing tonight is not—and should not be seen as—an insult to nationalists, because it is not intended as such. It is a neutral, matter-of-fact, reflection of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, for which the agreement provides.
Our aim must be to reduce the controversy that attends the flying of the Union flag, not to stoke it. That is what these regulations should do when the heat subsides, and I hope that the House will support them on that basis.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: First, I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said about the devolved Executive. I hope that it gave pleasure to everyone in the House to see that Executive working effectively and undertaking the difficult task of trying to balance its budget, by taking the tough decisions that have to be taken by politicians elsewhere—balancing difficult budget decisions in different Departments. I hope that the

devolved Administration—by way of an Assembly and an Executive—will continue for a long time. I hope that there will not be people who signed up to the Belfast agreement but do not honour their obligations, thereby putting the Executive under pressure. However, that is a debate for another day.
Secondly, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me a little advance notice of the order. That was much appreciated.
May I take you back, Mr. Speaker, to a debate on this very subject that we held earlier in the Session? I remind you that I clearly said that my party believes that Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to flags. I am broadly happy that the orders that the Secretary of State is laying before the House take into account a natural consistency. Therefore I welcome them. If, by any chance, there is a Division on them tonight, those of my colleagues who are present will support the Government.
It is wrong that the issue of flags should become irrational. I very much endorse the Secretary of State's point that people should be more relaxed and flexible about flags. Flags should be used to celebrate or, at a time of bereavement, to express sadness—as happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
My reading of the order—unless I have misunderstood it—is that Northern Ireland is brought entirely into line with England, Scotland and Wales, with the obvious exception that St. Patrick's day is recognised, as the other saints' days are recognised in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Having said all that, let me pose a few questions, which I hope might be answered if the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wind up the debate.
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said in response to the very legitimate question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about sanctions if the flags were not flown. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would deeply regret that and hope that it would never happen, but I was pleased to note that he would be prepared to take action in the courts if need be. I hope that that is not necessary, but it is important that that is seen as part of this debate, and that must be right.
On an even more technical note, the Secretary of State has listed some Government buildings where the flag will be flown on appropriate days. I should like an undertaking that that list will be kept under constant review, because obviously Ministries will be moved and other key buildings will be transferred from time to time, and his list will become irrelevant and dated. That is very important.
I thought that the intervention by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) was also very relevant, because I think that we are proud that on appropriate dates the flag flies from this Palace of Westminster, and it seems to me appropriate that it should fly from Stormont as well. Under the definition, of course, Stormont is not a Government building, because I think that the definition of a Government building is simply that the majority of people working there are Government employees, whereas the majority of people in the Parliament obviously work for the Parliament rather than the Government.
I understand the Secretary of State's reticence. We have a devolved Administration, and he does not want to interfere unduly. However, I hope that a message is sent


from this debate to our friends and colleagues in the devolved Assembly and the Executive, that it would be appropriate—as happens, I believe, in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—that the flags are flown on appropriate days.
My final point, and final quibble—I admit that these are merely quibbles on detail—concerns the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised, about when flags are flown at half mast on occasions other than the passing away of members of the royal family and serving and past Prime Ministers.
In the past couple of weeks, we witnessed the tragedy of the premature death of Donald Dewar. We noted that, rightly, flags were flown at half mast both at the Scottish Parliament and, I think, in Government buildings here in London. That was absolutely right and proper. Heaven forbid that our present First Minister, or future First Ministers, should pass away in office in Northern Ireland, but if that should be the case it would be absolutely appropriate if the same happened, and I think that it would be appreciated if somehow, as a result of this debate, it was recognised that that should happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield raised a point about the death of heads of state in office. Let us be mildly controversial and suppose—again, heaven forbid—that the President of the Irish Republic were to pass away. I think that if that happened, it would be hugely inappropriate if flags were not flown at half mast. It would not be understood in Dublin and, frankly, it would not be understood by the overwhelming majority of my constituents and the overwhelming majority of people in both communities in Northern Ireland. I hope that, in the relaxed manner that the Secretary of State wants flags to be flown, people will recognise that flags should be flown when the head of state of a friendly neighbour or a friendly partner in the European Union, or in NATO or elsewhere, passes away.
That is the non-controversial part, but of course I am always very cautious when looking at any order that the Secretary of State brings forward. He would expect nothing less.
As the Secretary of State surmised, I was slightly worried about his explanatory note, which said:
The European flag must be flown in addition to the Union flag on Europe day.

Mr. Mandelson: May be.

Mr. MacKay: No. It is "must be", I am afraid—I am quoting from the right hon. Gentleman's note—in the case of the seven Government buildings; but the European flag "may" be flown from the remaining Government buildings. Being a conspiracy theorist, I was naturally convinced that our openly Europhile Secretary of State was defying the Chancellor and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and was pushing his European case further. I regret to report that I was wrong, and that that is the practice throughout the United Kingdom, so the order complies with my consistent desire that Northern Ireland should be treated absolutely the same as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State rightly paraphrased the provisions of the order, because it would have taken rather

a long time to go through everything. However, there is a happy ending, because the explanatory note in full states:
The European flag must be flown in addition to the Union flag on Europe day at any of those buildings which have more than one flagpole.
My advice to those who are concerned about the issue is to make sure that they have only one flagpole.
On that more light-hearted note, may I again say to the Secretary of State that we strongly support the order. We think that it makes common sense. I hope that it will take some of the sting out of the issue of flags and emblems. I also commend the order to the House.

11 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It has been said that in the sweep of history, this is not a great issue, and I am sure that that is so. Equally, it is not a minor matter. Despite the relaxed, calm and understated way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his case for the order, it is a serious matter that will cause considerable problems and for which there is a hidden agenda.
A headline in The Guardian today states:
Sinn Fein will be told to fly the flag.
The report continues:
Sinn Fein ministers in Northern Ireland are to be forced to fly the union flag.
An article in The Daily Telegraph today states:
Peter Mandelson prompted the fury of Sinn Fein last night by ordering the Union flag to be flown.
I shall return to that particular spin shortly, because I do not think that it was addressed to Members of this House or to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but to another meeting that will take place in Belfast on Saturday. I will refer to that later.
I wish to deal with some of the points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made. His statement said that we were treating Northern Ireland the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, but the first point to be made is that Northern Ireland is not the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. Otherwise this order would not exist. As I understand it, there is not a flags and emblems order before the Scottish Assembly, and even if it had the power to legislate on such matters, I do not imagine that there would be one before the Welsh Assembly. I also understand that the saltire, the symbol of the Scottish nation, is flown over Government buildings in Scotland and the dragon of Wales is flown over Government buildings in Wales. That immediately raises the question as to why the Irish tricolour, the symbol of the Irish nation, is not flown to represent those members of the Irish nation in Northern Ireland who would like to see it flown over their Government buildings.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I will not give way, because there is very little time, and if I did, it might stir up other Members who might want to make observations later.
My right hon. Friend sought to pray in aid the principle of consent, but consent suggests that the parties agree. As far as I understand it, the only parties that agree to the proposal are the Administration and various types of


Ulster Unionist, not the nationalist groups in Northern Ireland. They do not consent to the proposal. My right hon. Friend quoted the Good Friday agreement, which states:
All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.
What could do more to create division than the main symbol of one faction in Northern Ireland—albeit, at the moment, the majority faction—being flown over Government buildings on particular dates, when the flag of the other faction is not to be flown?

Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I will not. I have already said that I want to finish my points so that others can make theirs.
Paragraph 5 of the Good Friday agreement does not back up what my right hon. Friend has said. My right hon. Friend said that he discussed matters with the parties, the Assembly, the Executive and the ad hoc committee, but he did not discuss the matter with a number of organisations that might have been able to give him some other advice, such as the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, which, under the legislation emanating from the Good Friday agreement, are specifically designed to deal with those particular matters. They were not consulted. I do not believe that the Civic Forum was consulted, and I have no idea whether the Irish Government were consulted, but it would be nice to know. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say when he replies.
My right hon. Friend also made a great point about his role as the sovereign power, and spoke of the need, as a member of the sovereign power, to act impartially. Under the section which deals with constitutional issues, the Good Friday agreement says:
the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities.
The regulations meet those criteria with regard to only one community. They do not make the point, nor do they accept—I come back to this point again—that the buildings are Government buildings of the devolved Assembly, representing both communities in Northern Ireland. If the Union flag should fly, the tricolour should also fly. If the tricolour does not fly, neither should the Union flag.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I did not give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), whom I regard as a friend, as I do the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), so I shall not give way to him, either.
I come now to the spin on this matter. Why have the regulations been introduced with such enormous speed at this particular time? The answer is because the Unionist

council is meeting next week, and this is another bone to be thrown to the Unionists to try to support the position of the First Minister. [Interruption.] The dogs are barking. My right hon. Friend is often quoted as saying that he regards the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) as indispensable. One of the things that many older politicians on all sides have said to all of us at one time or another is that the cemeteries are full of indispensable people. Therefore, we should be looking carefully at the policy that is being followed.
The First Minister is fighting hard to maintain the Good Friday agreement, to try to keep it going, to try to keep the Assembly going and to try to keep the Executive going. But for how long does one continue to make concessions on such matters, keeping the First Minister in place but unstitching the agreement?
Before the summer recess, when we were discussing the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which arose from the Patten report, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State tabled an amendment on the nature of the work of the RUC and persuaded Labour Members to support it, in some cases even against their better judgment. Before we had debated that, we suddenly had an announcement from the Minister of State that the amendment was to be withdrawn. That was done to bolster the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the leader of the Unionist party.
We can go on and on doing that. As a Unionist poet said, as long as we are paying the danegeld, we will never get rid of the Dane. If we continue to behave in that way, we will not strengthen the First Minister; we will undermine his position more and more. My advice to the Unionist council is to keep him there and to keep him under pressure, because Unionists will get concessions until the Government realise that by making those concessions, they are losing the other part of the community. I do not believe that they want to do that, any more than they want to lose the Unionist part of the community.
I shall not divide the House on the order tonight. What other colleagues do is up to them. The order is very much on the slippery slope. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used to speak of "saving private Trimble", and that is what is happening again tonight.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: It is always amusing to listen to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Lest the Secretary of State leave the House with the impression that all is rosy in the garden in Northern Ireland, may I bring a dose of reality to the debate before I deal with the specifics of the order?
Although we have devolution and we welcome the opportunity for locally elected representatives to have a greater say in the government of Northern Ireland, there are major fundamental problems with the process that must be addressed. Those problems include the failure of the terrorist organisations to deliver the peace that the people of Northern Ireland desire, and the failure of those organisations to decommission their illegal weapons two and a half years after the Belfast agreement.
The hon. Member for Hull, North spoke of concessions, but if he took time to weigh up the concessions made on both sides, he might conclude that the concessions made
to the republican movement significantly outweigh any concessions made to Unionists. There can be no greater concession that a society can make than to release on to the streets the murderers who are guilty of some of the most heinous crimes.
If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he regards as a concession in the form of the order, and sets that alongside the fact that the IRA has had all its prisoners released from prison, he will conclude that the balance is, indeed, unbalanced. In respect of the process of which the order is, I suppose, a part, there are problems that need to be addressed. I hope that the Government will use the same haste as that with which they introduced the order to tackle those problems, especially the violence that continues in Northern Ireland.
With reference to the order, an argument has been advanced by the nationalist parties—the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein—and indeed by the hon. Member for Hull, North that in addition to the flying of the Union flag, the tricolour should also be flown on the specified Government buildings. However, Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish Republic; it has no constitutional link with the Irish Republic. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The full title of our nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Hull, North checks his passport, he will discover that that is the case.
The Irish tricolour, as the flag of a foreign nation, has no place on the Government buildings of part of the United Kingdom. Only the Union flag, which is the flag of our nation, should be flown as a specified flag.

Mr. Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that flying the flag of a sovereign foreign nation over part of the United Kingdom would be offensive not only to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the people of England, Wales and Scotland? We would find it a monstrous outrage if a foreign flag were flown over part of our country.

Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman's comments speak for themselves.
The hon. Member for Hull, North referred to the practice in Scotland and Wales. However, they are integral parts of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the saltire flies alongside the Union flag on the Parliament buildings because the saltire is the flag of Scotland. The tricolour is not the flag of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Hull, North wishes a flag that represents Northern Ireland to fly alongside the Union flag, we have our own flag. If he wants to pursue that matter, I am happy to support him. However, I do not support flying the Irish tricolour on an equal basis with the Union flag. There is no joint authority in Northern Ireland, and the Irish tricolour should not be flown.
The Secretary of State said that there had been no complaint about the failure to fly the Union flag on Parliament Buildings. That is not correct. If he reads the submissions by the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the regulations, he will realise that four parties—the Ulster Unionist party, the Progressive Unionist party and the United Unionist Assembly party—called for them to be extended to include Parliament

buildings, Stormont. It is therefore not correct to say that the issue is not a matter of concern to parties in Northern Ireland.
Future Government buildings constitute another matter of concern. Let us suppose that one of the Departments relocates to a new building. Will the Secretary of State have to introduce a new order to specify that building for the flying of the Union flag? The matter cannot be covered retrospectively, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address the issue.
I support the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on sanctions. Without effective sanctions, the regulations are toothless. The problem that gave rise to them was the failure of Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers to fly the Union flag. There would be no regulations and no debate if that were not the case. Yet the regulations do not provide for sanctions against Ministers who fail to comply with the requirement to fly the Union flag on their departmental buildings.

Mr. Peter Robinson: As well as not complying with the requirement, Ministers might also breach regulation 9 and have the Irish tricolour flown alongside the Union flag. Ministers can direct officials. Again, there are no sanctions against that.

Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Secretary of State says that he cannot conceive of circumstances in which a Minister would compel a civil servant to disobey the regulations. He does not understand the nature of the Minister of Education. If he reads the record of the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly, he may take a rather different view. The organisation to which that Minister is connected has not been reluctant in the past to bring pressure to bear on civil servants, and the Secretary of State knows that.
The regulations cover only what are described as "government buildings". There are many other public buildings in Northern Ireland where there is controversy about the flying of the flag. We shall have to examine this issue in more detail in future. It is the Secretary of State's desire that the regulations will settle the flags issue, but that is to underestimate the problem. I think it will continue to be a problem. There may be a need in future to make regulations governing the flying of the Union flag on other public buildings, sad though that is. I wish that that were not the case. It is sad that we have to pass legislation—for Northern Ireland especially—to regulate the flying of our national flag. The flag should be flown without the need for regulations.
There is a lack of maturity, sadly, on the part of some who fail to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. That has brought us to the point where regulation is necessary. We welcome the closing of some of the loopholes by the regulations, but considerable problems remain. I hope that the Secretary of State will take them on board.

Mr. John McDonnell: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that time has moved on from the scenario set out by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). The Belfast agreement was the foundation of a new political


dispensation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to put old sores and provocations behind us. We need to consider things in a sensitive and balanced way.
At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It is clear from the Belfast agreement that on constitutional issues it demands parity of esteem. It is not acceptable for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to describe the Union flag as not being seen as sectional to certain members of the community in Northern Ireland. It is clear that it is seen as such and as representative of only one tradition.
Unfortunately, the regulations are something of a cop-out. They are clearly a sop before the Unionist council this weekend. They are an almost trivial sop. If the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is to be deselected, I do not believe that regulations of this sort will save him at this stage. As we go down this slippery slope of agreement and sop after sop, at some stage we should return to the principles of the Belfast agreement, which was based on parity of esteem.
The regulations will lead to almost ludicrous manipulations of legislation. The detail of the regulations is as follows:
The Union flag shall be flown at…government buildings.
We are demanding that the Union flag shall be able to fly over the departments of nationalist Ministers on St. Patrick's day. It is almost farcical.
Regulation 4 provides that where there are two flagpoles, one for the Union flag and the other for the European flag. What if there are three flagpoles? If my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) were speaking, he would be taking the regulations to pieces with his wit. We can fly the tricolour only if the Taoiseach is visiting. Does that require a daily visit from the Taoiseach? It seems that one flag must not be flown above the other. Will an official be measuring flagpoles to ascertain at which height the flag will be flown?
Sanctions are important. Will there be sanctions against anyone flying the tricolour on a Government building? Are we returning to the days of making it illegal to fly the tricolour on certain buildings? Will there be a criminal sanction against a Minister, a disciplinary sanction or a civil action? An unnecessary debate is having to take place because we are not abiding by the principles of the Belfast agreement. It is clear to me that if we extrapolate from the Belfast agreement the principle of parity of esteem, we should treat symbols equally. Therefore, if flags are to be flown, there should be the two flags of both traditions or neither.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: We get more good news than bad from the Province these days, and the IRA's statement today is circumstantially encouraging. [Interruption.] I have always been an optimist, and I reserve the right to say at some point, "I told you so."
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, while we talk about flags, Northern Irish politicians in Stormont are talking about the health service, social services and education. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), while we talk about process, in Northern Ireland they talk about government, and that is a healthy step forward.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rightly said that the Government seem to be trying to balance the concerns of the two main communities in

Northern Ireland. That is the right approach. It is sensible to support the order, because it returns us to the situation pre-devolution. We must recognise the work done by the flags committee in the Assembly, but it is unfortunate that it was unable to reach an agreement on the issue. Naturally enough it has required the Secretary of State to make a ruling. The order is well balanced and it should be viewed as the best way forward, although by no means the last word. The last word would be for us not to be discussing this matter.
There is a need to promote shared symbols in the Province rather than symbols that perpetuate division. The Union flag is being used as symbol of a division, and that is slightly to miss the point of this regulation. The Secretary of State was right to say that it tries to show genuine sensitivity towards both sides.
It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the provision for the European flag to be flown alongside the Union flag on Europe day, because it is a symbol that unites us all. [Interruption.] I simply muse that it unites us all, although certain groups are united against Europe. I hope that the hon. Member who winds up for the official Opposition will clarify whether it is their policy to oppose the flying of the European flag in principle for the entire term of the next Parliament but not after that.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: For ever.

Mr. Öpik: Thank you, for those who understood the point.
On a more serious note, as I listened to the hon. Member for Hull, North talking about the tricolour in the same breath as he talked about the flags used in Wales, Scotland and England, it struck me as more appropriate in that context to refer to St. Patrick's flag, which is a more like-for-like comparison of identity for the Province within the United Kingdom. I am very sensitive to the point that he made about the tricolour itself.
We must recognise that the Good Friday agreement referred to Northern Ireland as a continuing entity within the United Kingdom and not as an entity within the south of Ireland or as part of the island of Ireland. We need to be careful about how we assess the use of the tricolour.
As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) implied, it would be possible to fly the tricolour in perpetuity if the Taoiseach chose to have his residence in Belfast. I suspect that he will not make that sacrifice.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I may be proved wrong.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am amazed at the ignorance in this place. The Taoiseach is not the head of state, but that may be another revolutionary move planned for Dublin.

Mr. Öpik: I stand corrected, but I stand by the points that I made in principle, at least for the term of the next Parliament.
The problem is that the Government are attempting to prescribe an attitude. The comment of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about whether, under the


regulation, we can honour the death of foreign heads of state by flying the Union flag at half mast shows that there will still be loopholes that could be used by those who are determined to make it difficult for the order to work. In essence we are codifying an etiquette which, although it applies to the whole United Kingdom, we have been forced to put in black and white for Northern Ireland.
I am a realist. I think that while symbolically the proposal should encourage Unionist Members sitting behind me, it should not be seen as the final word on the matter. I shall return to that at the end of my speech.
The hon. Member for Hull, North speculated that this might be a sop to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Perhaps that is true to an extent, but the Taoiseach himself, Bertie Ahern, has said that he regards the right hon. Gentleman as a pivotal character in the development of the peace process. I know that the hon. Member for Hull, North agrees; I do not question that. I simply say that sometimes friends of the process need a helping hand. I do not think that there will be any real losers from the regulations. There will simply be a respectful and sensitive recognition of something that I also interpret the Good Friday agreement to mean—the rightful identity of Northern Ireland, for the time being at least, in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley takes a rather hard line. I hope he does not mind my saying that, but it may surprise some Members. The term "hard line" is, of course, relative. I regard the hon. Gentleman as a friend and reserve the right to go on bending his ear in the Tea Room and elsewhere, but I hope that he will consider taking a slightly softer line at the weekend—although that is obviously a matter for him. I think that the regulations may tackle some issues that I have heard him raise in the past. Let me suggest, if I may be so bold, that they represent something of a middle way in the flags debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "A third way!"] Or a third way. To that extent, they suggest the possibility of a certain empathy between the two sides in the debate.
The Secretary of State confirmed that he would revoke, or seek to revoke, the regulations if a consensual solution were found in Northern Ireland. I consider that to be a sensible and encouraging step, because it leaves the way open for Northern Ireland to resolve the flags issue, even if it has not done so yet. However, it also underlines the cold fact that, although the regulations attempt to cure the symptoms, they cannot cure the cause because the cause is an attitude. However much we debate these matters in the Chamber, it seems to be a cold, hard but very real fact that, ultimately, if we want to resolve the issues that underlie this evening's debate, it is up to the politicians of Northern Ireland because only they can cure the cause.

Rev. William McCrea: It is an honour for me to return to the House of Commons as Member of Parliament for South Antrim. However, the circumstances that brought about the by-election cause pain in the hearts of many right hon. and hon. Members.
The late Clifford Forsythe had represented South Antrim since 1983. He entered the House when I first entered it myself. During my fourteen and a half years here previously as Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, Clifford was a personal friend. We shared many cherished principles in our hearts.
During the election campaign, I was deeply moved by how often, on the doorsteps, Clifford was mentioned with great love and deep affection, and by the respect in which he was held both in and outside the South Antrim constituency. That is further eloquent testimony to his integrity as a Member of Parliament. Tonight, I salute his memory, and place on record my genuine respect and affection for him. I trust that my efforts to defend traditional Unionist values will ensure that his battle for the cause of democracy lives on. I again record my sympathy for his beloved widow and family circle, and assure them of my Christian prayers and love.
South Antrim is the heart of traditional Unionism, and my election has sent a clear, unambiguous message to those in Government—the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and those in authority. I promise my constituents that I shall endeavour to represent them faithfully in the mother of Parliaments. Irrespective of their background, I will give them support and assistance with their everyday problems.
I have listened to the debate with interest. There are not many things on which the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I agree. He has a very different perspective from me. However, I agree with one aspect of his speech. I do not think that the Secretary of State can expect the people of Northern Ireland to be gullible. The timing of the debate has more to do with the future of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) than with anything else.
The London and Dublin Governments are running around like headless chickens seeking to find ways and means to bolster a situation and an agreement that the majority of Unionists firmly believe is fundamentally flawed and therefore reject. There is no misunderstanding the meaning of the result of my election to the House. I have no doubt that the IRA statement, the alleged proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Belfast and a few announcements attempting to create the illusion of progress will aim to buy off the Unionist electorate. It should be remembered—once bitten, twice shy.
The proposals in relation to the flying of the Union flag, the national flag of Northern Ireland, are wrong both in principle and in practice. They are born out of constitutional ambiguity, which arose out of the signing of the Belfast agreement. Regardless of the view that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and those who support him propagate, the failure of the Union flag to fly over Government buildings is a clear indication of the many issues that the Belfast agreement left unresolved. If the agreement had truly secured the Union and brought acceptance on behalf of the nationalist population about the status of Northern Ireland, there would be no need for the legislation and for the debate.
It is interesting. We have heard from the hon. Member for Hull, North about the anger and frustration in the nationalist-republican community about the flying of flags. Where are the two Members for republican Sinn Fein-IRA who have been elected to the House? I do not see them. Where are the Social Democratic and Labour Members who feel passionately about the flags issue? I do not see any of them. However, I believe, deep in my heart, that they thought that the issue and the cause would be duly represented by the hon. Member for Hull, North and possibly by the Secretary of State.
Unfortunately, constitutional certainty does not exist. Even more regrettably for the Unionist population in Northern Ireland, the so-called cure to the problem of the refusal of Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers to fly the flag may be worse than the problem. If we clear away the spin by the Secretary of State and leader of the Ulster Unionist party, some fundamental problems remain with the legislation.
It is interesting that, despite the recommendations and report of the Northern Ireland Assembly, no significant change was made to the draft order. It is yet another exercise in spin without substance. The Secretary of State did not find it necessary to make any significant amendment to the legislation—neither to change the political balance of the order, nor to cover any loopholes in the legislation. So much for the sensitivity of the Secretary of State for the wounded Unionist population of the Province.
What are the problems that remain? What other part of the United Kingdom would make it illegal to fly the national flag on all but a small number of days? Members will notice that regulation 9 says:
Prohibition on the flying of flags other than in accordance with the Regulations.
Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall he flown at any government building—
that includes the Union flag—
at any time.
In what other part of the United Kingdom is that a reality? That is what the legislation does. It is not legislation to provide for the flying of the flag, but primarily legislation that bans the flying of the national flag over Government buildings. It does not provide for the flying of the flag over Stormont. The buildings over which the flag is required to be flown are limited and, worse, subject to being sidelined. For example, the headquarters of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure does not appear to be on the list of buildings over which the flag has to fly. Indeed, the regulations can be avoided if the headquarters of other Departments change or a new building is established. The list of buildings is frozen in time. It is a recipe for the flying of the flag to wither away over time. New buildings are specifically excluded from consideration.
This is a farce. What sort of legislation is it that it can so easily be avoided and evaded? It is legislation that will pass the test of humouring a section of the community in the short term, while forcing Sinn Fein-IRA to do nothing in the long term. This is the type of solution that other hon. Members may be used to—strong on illusion, weak on reality.
Such is the limitation on the flying of the Union flag that even 12 July is excluded. I regard that as a calculated insult to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. No doubt, the convenient justification—we have heard it—is the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. That may be a justification if we in Northern Ireland had all the same rights and rules as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Can the Secretary of State assist me in understanding where else in the United Kingdom it is illegal to fly the Union flag? What other part of the United Kingdom has a prohibition on the flying of the Union flag on Government buildings? What other Parliament would pass legislation to declare legality for the flying of its national flag and, at the same time, declare it illegal to fly it for 348 days a

year? This is Northern Ireland post the Belfast agreement. It is a society where terrorists sit in government, where the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be disbanded and where the flying of the Union flag will be illegal for 95 per cent. of the year. These regulations are no solution. I believe that this is an example of a dimmer switch on British culture in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Frank Field: I want to make a point about Clifford Forsythe. I had enormous pleasure working with him on a Select Committee for all the years that he was in the House. My grandmother's phrase for Clifford would be that he was one of God's gentlemen. I would not want that side of his character not to be recorded tonight.
I much enjoyed talking to Clifford about Northern Ireland and Irish politics. While he was a passionate Unionist he was also balanced in his debates. I should tell my hon. Friends that it is important to remember in these debates that the cornerstone for the Belfast agreement was that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until people vote otherwise. There are other points in the agreement about proper respect, but that is the cornerstone.
One could not know Clifford and not also record that he believed that there was a range of views to which he was totally opposed, but that he believed were legitimate if they were not backed by the gun. I must tell my friends on the Opposition Benches that, while I more than sympathise with the anguish that they bring to these debates, it is important when debating these matters that, while we hold to central points, we also link with that the fact that, as democrats, there are other views with which we may disagree but which are totally legitimate for people to hold and to press in debates in order to seek to win over others.
As I have said, it is clear that the cornerstone of the Belfast agreement is that Northern Ireland remains a part of this country until people vote otherwise. Given that agreement, it is proper that the nature of the United Kingdom should be affirmed from public buildings.

Mr. John Gummer: The task before us today is to disentangle the nature of the Union flag. The Union flag needs to fly on Government buildings when it is the symbol of the agreement in Belfast that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. It must not be used to make a different statement, as sometimes happens in other parts of the United Kingdom. We know of political parties that try to assert that they have a particular relationship with the Union flag. There is one particular party that, I feel, has little right to make that statement, for it is exclusive and extremist—[Interruption.] I am trying to take this issue seriously. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was listened to with great seriousness, although some of the things that he said were, I thought, inappropriate for this occasion.
The Government are properly attempting to identify those occasions on which the Union flag can reasonably be accepted—even by those who, in a referendum, would say that they do not wish to be part of the United Kingdom—as the symbol of statehood. That is a proper use of the Union flag. I have to tell the hon. Member for


South Antrim (Rev. William McCrea) that it is a total distortion of the proposed regulations to suggest that they are about stopping people from flying the flag on other occasions. The proposals seek to entrench those occasions when, by flying the flag, the people of Northern Ireland assert the fact, which was accepted by all sides to the Belfast agreement, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom unless and until it decides to be otherwise. That is why those occasions are identified.
There is an exact parallel between such use of the Union flag and use—if I may dare to move to a more controversial subject—of the European flag. The European flag is flown on those occasions on which we are asserting something that, for me, is a matter of joy and celebration—that we are part of the European Union. However, the European flag is not to be flown on occasions on which it would be merely an assertion of a partisan position.
I fly the European flag on other occasions to celebrate a particular point of view. When it is flown on Europe day, however, it does not celebrate a particular view, it makes a statement of fact. I am afraid that some of my colleagues do not like that fact.

Mr. Swayne: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gummer: On that one occasion, however, they have to accept that fact. They can fight about it the rest of the time, but, on that one occasion, they should accept that we are making a factual and not a partisan statement. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), that is a very important parallel.
I should like to finish my comments by saying something to my Unionist friends. As one who is in that curious position of being Catholic-Unionist, I have to say that I do not think that the Unionist cause would be helped by any attempt to claim the Union flag as a sectarian flag. It is not a sectarian flag. The moment that the Union flag is merely a symbol of those who happen to hold such a view, it ceases to be the flag that can fly from Government buildings.
The Union flag is the symbol of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland, by a majority, wish to be part of the United Kingdom. It is also a symbol of a democracy that says that if, by a majority, the people of Northern Ireland decide that they do not want to be part of the United Kingdom, no one is going to keep them there. However, as long as they do want to be part of the United Kingdom, that is their flag.
The Unionist people have to be very careful that they do not make it more difficult for the nationalist majority to accept that symbol for what it is by trying to pretend that it has some other connection. In that sense, I think that the Government's proposed regulations are perfectly proper. The fact that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) may or may not have difficulties does not detract from the reality of the situation. We are choosing a series of occasions to affirm one thing—that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so unless and until the people want something

different. That is what the flag symbolises and nothing more and, let me say to the hon. Member for Hull, North, nothing less either.

Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has set about his Unionist friends. I suspect that he was pointing to those on the Bench in front of me, so I hope that he will allow me to say that I am one of his Unionist friends. I find it is most unfortunate that he is discussing as a sectarian symbol the same flag that I, as a Unionist and an Englishman, see as a statement of national sovereignty. Should he not see it in the same way?

Mr. Gummer: I have to say to my hon. Friend that I did not say that and I have to say something rather sharply to him. If he would only listen to those of us who are trying to bring together the two communities instead of constantly trying to see in what we say something that runs against his own prejudices, it might be that we who do not represent Irish seats can help those who do to bring the communities together instead of merely stoking the forces of division.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): First, I welcome the hon. Member for South Antrim (Rev. William McCrea) back to the House. I am sure that all hon. Members will share the sentiments that he expressed about the late Clifford Forsythe. I am not sure whether a repeat maiden speech has quite the same standing, but it was in the best tradition of the House for the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to his predecessor. It was a worthy tribute to a fine man and I am sure his family will be grateful, as will his constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, on this occasion, as probably on many others, I cannot endorse much of what he said, but the House will have noted that, in his absence from this place, he has lost none of his fiery style of presentation.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) asked a series of questions and I shall try to answer them as quickly as I can. The right hon. Gentleman, among others, asked whether the list of specified buildings could be reviewed and the regulations appropriately revised in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that, but I am happy to repeat what he said. No doubt there will be occasions, such as the creation of new buildings, when it will be appropriate to do that. As and when that becomes necessary, the appropriate revisions will be undertaken.
If a problem emerged over the death of a well-respected head of state, for example, or some other well-respected person in Northern Ireland, I would hope that it could be overcome by voluntary means, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bracknell joins me in that. However, if it becomes apparent that there is a problem, the appropriate revisions can be considered.
The right hon. Gentleman and others raised the question of Parliament buildings. Again, my right hon. Friend mentioned the solution to that. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) will appreciate that the best solution would be for the Assembly to agree what is right, proper and appropriate. We have not lost all hope that it will do that in this and other matters involving flag-flying.
Time does not permit me to go into great detail on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I say to my hon. Friend—the same applies to the hon. Member for South Antrim—that he either ignores or misses the whole point of the Good Friday Agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave good explanations of the current constitutional situation of Northern Ireland within the context of both the Good Friday agreement and where it sits within the UK. I will not add to that, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North had listened carefully to those speeches, he would have had to accept that they were logical and expressed the situation very well.
I conclude by responding briefly to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). He is always constructive and helpful in these debates and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I appreciate his contributions to the on-going process in which we are all involved.
I will not enter into the European debate on this issue—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
That Sir George Young be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mrs. Angela Browning be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

PETITION

Earl Shilton Bypass

Mr. David Tredinnick: At almost midnight, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Earl Shilton bypass action group. In my constituency Earl Shilton is an important community, and the bypass was planned nearly 20 years ago. Now, it is a priority scheme of Leicestershire county council. The bypass is particularly important and its significance is highlighted because a decision will be made in December about the additional allocation of resources for transport schemes.
The leaders behind the petition were in my advice bureau last week to argue the case, and I agreed without any doubt to deliver the petition tonight on behalf of the 2,500 petitioners in Earl Shilton.
The petition reads:
To the House of Commons:—
The Petition of the Earl Shilton by-pass action group declares that the reason for the petition is to indicate the strength of public feeling within the community with regard to accelerating the construction of the Earl Shilton by-pass, a project which has been part of the Hinckley and Bosworth borough council's and Blaby district council's local plans for almost two decades and is long overdue.
The petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House of Commons note the strength of feeling, indicated by the number of signatures, with a view to advising Ministers responsible for considering the bid for financial resources, made by the Leicestershire county council in its latest Local Transport Plan (LTP) to give it favourable consideration so that work may commence on construction without any further delay.
And the petitioners remain…

To lie upon the Table.

Unemployment (Bassetlaw)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Joe Ashton: I am grateful to have the opportunity to put the case of my constituents, and I would like to thank hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for staying up until this late hour.
My constituency of Bassetlaw in North Notts is where three counties meet—Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. I am surrounded tonight by hon. Friends with problems similar to mine. My constituency covers 300 sq m, has 38 parish councils and also a traditional coal, textiles, food, glass and farming industry base. Like many other regions in the area, it was devastated by pit closures between 1986 and 1993.
In 1997 a new Labour Government came in and granted enterprise zone status to Bassetlaw, giving substantial tax breaks and aid to certain parts of the constituency. In January the outlook was so promising that the Bassetlaw development agency confidently forecast that 12,500 jobs would be created in that area of north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire in the very near future. That was just 10 months ago. The Manton Wood regeneration site attracted Solway Foods, Haslewood Foods, Cacao's French Chocolate and other firms, and other expansion created 1,000 jobs. However, since then this millennium year has consisted of 10 months of disaster.
Last January, Deema Glass at Harworth, which employed 420 people, went up for sale because its order books were running out. That caused much despair and distress in the area. The good news is that the firm is being bought by Marlin Lighting and Sylvania International, but no one knows how many jobs will be saved or what will be done with the firm.
In July, Courtaulds announced 650 job losses resulting from Marks and Spencer's policy of buying abroad rather than in Britain. Factories controlled by Courtaulds and supplying Marks and Spencer are in future to be built in Morocco and Sri Lanka. Courtaulds is training workers there to earn £20 and £13 a week to replace British jobs. In effect, it is exporting British jobs abroad.
Why should such small countries be allowed access to the European Union market? That will simply create more profit for Courtaulds. Although those small countries need to be bolstered with aid and have in the past received concessions, the profit created for Courtaulds in Morocco and Sri Lanka simply puts more workers in Worksop on the dole.
It gets worse. In September, Coats Viyella said that 260 jobs would be lost in Worksop. We must remember that about 18,000 people are in employment in Worksop, so losing 1,000 jobs is pretty devastating. Moreover, the effect of the Coats Viyella decision went beyond Worksop; all of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire is affected. Of the 3,000 jobs to go at Coats Viyella, 2,000 involved skilled workers in areas still reeling from pit closures.
On 29 September, the Worksop Guardian ran a story under the headline "Batchelors Bombshell". The sub-headline stated "450 Workers Face Axe in Factory Shock", and an article on the inside pages asked
How much more can a town like Worksop take?
Unilever announced that the 450 jobs at Batchelors were at risk because Unilever had formed a merger with United States food producer Bestfoods, which gave that firm too big a share of the market. Batchelors makes Oxo cubes, mushy peas, chicken noodles and other basic foods. However, Unilever will have to axe 25,000 jobs over the next five years, many of them in places such as Worksop.
Factories and jobs based in north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire are being moved around Europe as though they were chess pieces or counters on a monopoly board. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is present for the debate. In his constituency, Johnsons, a firm run from Cologne, closed with 550 job losses, even though it had received a grant worth £1.75 million from the Department of Trade and Industry in 1991. Other jobs have been lost at the local breweries and other plants, which will in future be relocated to Czechoslovakia. That country wants to enter the EU in four years time, and such jobs will attract wages of £50 a week.
The steel firm Corus has plants in neighbouring Rotherham, Sheffield and Scunthorpe. Almost 4,000 of its workers have been made redundant nationwide—more than at Rover. Another 700 jobs have been lost at the Biwater plant on north-east Derbyshire. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is present for the debate.

Mr. Harry Barnesx: I am glad that reference has been made to the Biwater plant. The situation there is disgraceful. The multinational company Saint Gobain has moved in to buy the plant and close it, so that the order book can be stolen and moved overseas. The jobs lost will go to South America, China and elsewhere, even though there is a viable industry in this country producing material for overseas.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is right, and he has hit the nail on the head. These are not bust and derelict factories that are going rusty because their trade has been exhausted. They are suffering from a deliberate policy of wheeling and dealing in jobs from the north midlands region. There is not a level playing field within the EU in that regard. It is much cheaper to close down plants and transfer jobs in Britain than in other EU countries. That is why ours are the first to go. Redundancy costs are cheaper here because often the Government, not the factory, bear the cost.
European competition laws demand that new buyers must abide by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. It means that they have to pay the same wages. However, not very long after the transfer has been made, the new owner has taken over and the dust has begun to settle, a restructuring is allowed if market forces demand it. So the downsizing starts, because people can easily prove that the market demands restructuring.
Pension rights are not covered. Unilever provides very good pension rights, but there is no guarantee that the new buyer will maintain them. The new owners will constantly rationalise the industries to get their money back, and jobs will go.


Over the past 12 months, the forecast has been that north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire will lose 4,000 jobs, with only 1,600 being created. Unemployment could rise well over 5 per cent., and wages in our area are already £2 an hour below the national average.
The Government announced on 10 October that £800 million of aid would be given to the 88 most deprived areas of the country, yet unbelievably, although Bassetlaw is the eighth most deprived area in the east midlands development area, it was not included. I am not protesting about the fact that Bolsover—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is here—Mansfield, Ashfield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield will all receive some of the £800 million of extra aid for the most deprived areas, but why has Bassetlaw not been included?
We cannot understand why the new neighbourhood renewal fund that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced has a formula for inclusion that obviously does not include a place like my constituency, where unemployment has rocketed in the past 10 months. We have some very deprived areas; they were once thriving coal mining areas but sadly there has been nothing much there since the pit closures. We are seeing sweeping changes in north Nottinghamshire that are almost as bad as the pit closures in terms of the number of jobs lost.
There is chronic insecurity. Cottam power station, in my patch in Bassetlaw, has just been sold to London Electricity for £400 million. Seven hundred jobs are involved. What will happen to the people working there? Will there be redundancies? Nobody knows.
R.J.B. Mining, whose headquarters is at Harworth in my constituency, recently tried to sell the industry. Despite picking up a £75 million cash handout from the Government, it tried to do a deal with an American buyer, Renco.
We are all loyal supporters of the Government, and we accept that they are doing sterling work. They are doing marvellously well to bring in new jobs, but doing that takes at least two years from the planning stage to getting the grants, and the jobs are being lost virtually overnight. That is due not to redundancy but to the work being shifted to countries with cheap labour costs, such as Czechoslovakia or Hungary, which are trying to enter the European Union, or to existing EU countries where it is much more expensive to shut something down.
There must be some control of this wholesale wheeling and dealing in jobs. Lives, and even whole towns, are being destroyed by accountants, not because the industries are losing money but because they can make more money taking British jobs abroad. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends here tonight when I say that the workers cannot understand why the Government do not insist on some sort of EU regulation to stop this happening so easily and quickly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on securing the time for this important debate. He has set out clearly and with great feeling—as I would expect of him—the issues

that affect and have an impact on people in his constituency and, more generally, in north Nottinghamshire and the wider region.
I agree with him that it has been disappointing to see the level of job losses and factory closures in Bassetlaw and the neighbouring area, especially over the past few months. Certainly, the Government recognise that the north Nottinghamshire area is going through some fundamental changes. As my hon. Friend said, some recent changes have had a considerable impact on the local people.
The role of the Government in addressing such issues is threefold. First, the success or failure of an area and the activities in it are dependent on conditions in the economy as a whole. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that we have worked hard to try to ensure that the economy is stable, and that, in turn, has enabled investment to be made in all our regions.
Secondly, we need to address the imbalances that exist in people's lives and opportunities—not only between regions, but within them. It is because we recognise those imbalances and because we want to bring those who are most disadvantaged up to the level of the best that we have introduced a strong regional economic development policy through the work of the regional development agencies. I know that is very important for the development of the east midlands.
Thirdly, in some instances, the Government can take specific action locally, as well as regionally and nationally, to respond to particular and sometimes critical circumstances, such as those described by my hon. Friend. Regeneration, unemployment and so on have to be addressed nationally, regionally and locally. I shall touch on those aspects, while also trying to address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
The message given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Birmingham chamber of commerce in August this year emphasised that the Government have an industrial policy based on three clear principles. First, we are trying to put in place the building blocks for the future—to enable industries to obtain the skills they need in their work force and to access the new knowledge bases that they need; and to ensure that they have the necessary communications infrastructure so as to create a strong enterprise culture in Britain.
Secondly, we are creating a modern regulatory framework that helps innovation and encourages growth and increased productivity. Modern economies are complex. Governments take a huge range of decisions that have an impact on industrial success. Our role is to ensure that sustainable wealth creation and business growth are at the heart of those decisions in Britain.
Thirdly, we are trying to provide world-class, forward-looking business support for businesses to expand at home and overseas—helping manufacturing and services. We are promoting innovation and providing opportunities for emerging industries and markets.
The core of that strategy is that we are trying to help industry and businesses to look to the future as the only way of ensuring sustained growth and employment. However, as a Government, we also have to consider the present. My hon. Friend is quite right to direct our focus on events currently occurring in his area. As industries restructure and the economy changes, some industries are facing traumatic change.
It is important to point out that we are not in the business of stopping change in industries that need to modernise. Propping up old ways of working and inefficient processes is not the way forward. However, we also need to help established industries in the regions to modernise and compete in new markets. We are trying to support people and communities through what are sometimes difficult periods of change.
We are investing in training and skills to ensure that those affected by such changes can find new, quality jobs. We are trying to encourage enterprise—to support new firms that have the potential to grow. We are stepping up our work on attracting new investment in growth industries, as well as helping companies in the supply chain to innovate and to adapt.
Cash injection can only ever be a partial solution, although it has a limited application. There have been some cash injections locally, to which I shall refer. However, we also need new instruments focused on giving companies the knowledge and capabilities that they need to succeed.
My hon. Friend laid great stress on what he felt was the impact of the potential for companies to move businesses—and therefore take jobs away—from this country to other parts of Europe and indeed the world, and he is right to identify the fact that there are global challenges to many of the businesses that are in this country. We have a very limited remit in respect of some of those challenges, as Government can have only a limited impact on the potential for companies to respond to opportunities elsewhere in the world. We are not unmindful of the issue, but the potential that we have, either alone or through Europe, to create what my hon. Friend called a level playing field is quite limited. However, I do recognise that those are real issues that companies in his area and elsewhere are facing.

Mr. Alan Meale: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but obviously there are instances in which the Government can act—for instance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) intimated, regarding Czechoslovakia. That country is making an application to join the European Union and is basically giving away large sites, pre-built, for companies to move from western Europe before it enters the European Union, at costs with which, clearly, we cannot compete.
Secondly, we have policy in relation to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is paying, and has paid, huge sums of money to multinational companies to come to coal mining areas such as north Nottinghamshire. In the instance of Johnson Control, £1.7 million was given to that company, and at the same time was refused to local companies that wanted to expand. Companies come in, make a fast buck and then sell out on to the open market and move overseas and make money there. Obviously that is not a sensible policy in terms of countries that want to join the European Union, over which we have control in terms of the directives that we can oppose. We could also say that we will not be any part of the Treasury policy in future.

Mr. Hughes: I take the points that my hon. Friend makes. I would simply put it to him that we cannot make

such changes in European regulations and directives unilaterally. Such changes have to be made through processes at European level, and there are wider issues. This is a difficult thing for my hon. Friends to hear, and I understand that, but there are wider issues pertaining to the reasons why we want, and are encouraging, certain countries to join the European Union. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about the way that he feels—that some of those countries are using their pre-entry position to entice businesses, but that is something that, in terms of our own internal national policy, is very difficult for us to regulate.

Mr. Meale: I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, but there is a difficulty. We can influence directives. We can oppose them at the Council of Ministers. Clearly Britain is being affected prior to these countries' application. The textile industry in Britain is being riven by companies moving from this country abroad. The car industry and the glass industry are similarly losing out to Czechoslovakia. We can say through the Council of Ministers that we are sorry but we object to these directive concessions.

Mr. Hughes: Well, we can, and we could in theory, but that raises some fundamental issues that must be dealt with across government. It is not simply a DETR question; it is not simply a DTI question. My hon. Friend is raising—I understand why, and he is right to do so—very fundamental questions, which would have to be decided at the heart of government and at the highest level. I am afraid that, as he knows, I am not in a position to give him a response on that here tonight, but I will ensure that the views that he has expressed on these issues will be heard and will go to the relevant Departments.
I wanted to touch on what the Government are trying to do to assist at the regional level and to tackle imbalances between regions. All my hon. Friends will be aware of the work being done by the East Midlands development agency, with which they have all had contact. It is trying to deal with some of the problems that they have raised tonight.
As a result of this year's comprehensive spending review, Government support for the regional development agencies will increase from £1.2 billion a year now to £1.7 billion in 2004. Clearly, some of those resources will go to the east midlands to try to tackle some of the issues that have been raised.

Mr. Barnes: The problem is that many areas face immediate difficulties that will not be dealt with by developments that will make changes in the future. Emergency action needs to be taken in certain areas. At the Labour party conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that
when there is real pressure and difficulties in areas like textiles, coal and steel and in specific plants like Biwater in Clay Cross—we must not stand to one side. We won't walk away.
In the case of a viable firm, such as Biwater in Clay Cross, reference should surely be made to the Competition Commission, because it has the right to say that certain


moves are hitting exports, creating unemployment and distorting industry in various areas. Therefore, action can be taken to stop such moves. Such action is required.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister must reply to one intervention before she gives way to another.

Ms Hughes: I will deal with the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised, but I am perfectly happy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and give a composite response to their questions.

Mr. Skinner: The Government have decent intentions, but the two years of Tory spending plans did not help and we have lost a lot of time. The pits were closed in most areas and the women in many pit villages worked in textiles. They were the breadwinners, but they have now lost their jobs. In many constituencies jobs have been lost, and in Bolsover alone in the past seven months, 800 jobs have been lost and most of them were held by women. They feel that no one is helping them.
We have made a proposition for massive infrastructural changes. They will need a bob or two, but the Government are not short of money. Development at a junction just off the Ml would provide about 9,000 jobs and a link between the Ml and the Al would make the area just like Corby. Remember Corby? The steel industry went but a link road was built. The net result was that the whole area blossomed in terms of industry. Similar action is necessary in my area and it must be done sharpish. We have got to save the Clay Cross Biwater plant, too.

Ms Hughes: In terms of a hard-edged response to some of the local issues, I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend did not mention the rapid response fund. The Government-led response group was established to help the workers affected by large-scale redundances and the closure of the Coats Viyella factories throughout the east midlands, including in Worksop. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that rapid response funding of more than £1 million for people affected by the closure or scaling down of Coats Viyella sites in the area has taken place. That money will help people to retrain and it relates to the points that he made about the need for money to help people access jobs by improving transport links or by enabling them to develop new skills.
At Courtaulds, £300,000 of rapid response funding has been agreed to alleviate difficulties caused by the closure of its factory in Worksop. At Johnson Control Automotive (UK) Ltd. in Mansfield, I understand that a bid for rapid response funding is to be made shortly and that it is likely to be for more than £250,000. Similarly, in south Yorkshire, which borders the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, rapid response funding of more than £1 million has helped redundant workers to find jobs.
I understand that change has impacted in many ways on family members, particularly in the textile industry. My hon. Friends will know that, in response to the industry-led textile clothing strategy group's report, in June this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry unveiled a plan to help the textile industry adapt and improve to meet global changes in the sector. It offers a number of practical measures to support the industry directly through its supply chain and retailers. The point about the need for a new junction on the M1 to help people to access jobs is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will know that the matter is progressing and I hope that there will be a favourable outcome.
Difficult decisions had to be made concerning the neighbourhood renewal fund. The top 50 authorities that scored on any one of the six measures of deprivation received the funding. As has been said, they included Mansfield and Bolsover, but not Bassetlaw.
I hope that my hon. Friends accept that the Government are trying in a number of ways to address the problems that their areas face. However, the Government cannot change the situation locally without the kind of partnerships on the ground that I know my hon. Friends want to support. We recognise the many real difficulties that people face, and we are trying, nationally, regionally and locally, to create opportunities whereby local partners can begin to turn the situation around.
I recognise the many difficult issues that have been raised tonight and, as far as I can, I shall take those up with the Departments within whose remits they lie. But I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that at those three levels the Government are trying to address the problems that they have rightly outlined tonight and that we recognise.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.